Lomax & Stanley Bank v. Peacher
| Decision Date | 03 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 29195 |
| Citation | 30 S.W.2d 44 |
| Parties | LOMAX & STANLEY BANK v. PEACHER et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Motion for Rehearing Overruled July 9, 1930.
Roger Stone Miller, of Kansas City, and is Scott J. Miller, of Chillicothe, for appellant.
O. F Libby, of Laclede, and Thomas P. Burns, of Brookfield, for respondent.
Suit to set aside a deed executed by W. R. Peacher and wife Sadie, in consideration of $ 1, conveying to Ray Cates, a single person, two hundred acres of land in Linn county subject to certain deeds of trust, and to set aside a deed executed by Cates, in consideration of $ 1, conveying the same land to Sadie Peacher, subject to said deeds of trust. Cates was the conduit through whom the title was transferred from husband to wife.
It is alleged that Peacher was insolvent; that the deeds were without consideration and were executed in fraud of Peacher's creditors. The answer is a general denial.
The court found that Peacher was insolvent at the time of the transfers, that the deeds were without consideration, and that they were executed in fraud of creditors. So finding, the court canceled the deeds. Defendant Sadie Peacher appealed.
In December, 1925, Peacher's creditors were pressing him for payment. He owned several tracts of land and personal property. Respondent creditor was insisting that he secure the bank by a deed of trust on a part of his home place, being the two hundred acres involved. Thereupon, and on December 26, 1925, Peacher executed a deed of trust above mentioned conveying the two hundred acres to secure a $ 5,000 loan; and on the same day executed another deed of trust above mentioned conveying said land to secure the payment of $ 300 charged as commission for procuring the loan. He then on December 28, 1925, conveyed the two hundred acres of land above mentioned to Ray Cates, a single person, subject to the deeds of trust mentioned, and Cates on December 29, 1925, conveyed the land to the appellant, Sadie Peacher, subject to the deeds of trust mentioned. He then on December 29, 1925, in consideration of $ 1, conveyed to Myron Peacher, a son, one hundred and twenty acres of land in Linn county, subject to a deed of trust securing a note for $ 9,000. He then on January 2, 1926, executed a chattel mortgage conveying all his personal property to J. E. West, a brother-in-law, to secure the payment of his note of even date for $ 2,000, payable to said West. It seems that he owned other land, which at the time was incumbered for more than its value. Thus it appears that Peacher disposed of all his property within a few days after respondent demanded security for its debt.
On learning of these conveyances, respondent sued Peacher and attached the two hundred acre farm. Thereupon, and on June 18, 1926, Peacher voluntarily filed a petition in bankruptcy. The state court having jurisdiction more than five months before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, an order was made in the bankrupt court authorizing respondent to proceed with the attachment suit to final judgment against the land. On trial of the cause, the attachment was sustained and a judgment lien was entered against the land for the amount of respondent's debt. Peacher appealed to this court, and the judgment was affirmed on December 2, 1927.
It is clear appellant knew that her husband was insolvent at the time the land was conveyed to her. She testified that she did not know about certain notes, but did not testify that she did not know of his insolvency. She may not have known the details of his financial condition, but she could not have joined in the wholesale disposition of these properties within so short a time without knowing something of his financial condition. She testified they talked about transferring the properties, and it appears she knew enough of his financial condition to become very active when his creditors indicated they would take action to collect their debts.
On their face, the deeds conveying the land to her are voluntary conveyances. But she contends they were for a valuable consideration. In February, 1918, she inherited $ 2,250. Her husband, without her written assent, invested this money in one hundred and twenty acres of land, taking title in his name. He thereby held 'the title in trust for her in the same proportion as the amount of her separate money used by him bears to the whole of the purchase money.' Jones v. Elkins, 143 Mo. 647, 45 S.W. 261; Alkire Grocer Co. et al. v. Ballenger et al., 137 Mo. 369, 38 S.W. 911; Seay v. Hesse, 123 Mo. 450, 24 S.W. 1017, 27 S.W. 633. Nevertheless, appellant elected to be a general creditor of her husband. This may be done. Winn v. Riley, 151 Mo. 61, 52 S.W. 27, 74 Am. St. Rep. 517; Hoffmann v. Hoffmann's Ex'r, 126 Mo. 486, loc. cit. 494, 29 S.W. 603.
To supply considerations for the deeds conveying to her the $ 5,000 equity in the home place, appellant charged her husband with the $ 2,250 she inherited, $ 954 interest on that sum, and $ 3,000 for poultry and eggs produced on the home place.
In testifying to sustain these charges, appellant was conveniently forgetful, and her testimony is not satisfactory. However, she testified she sold poultry and eggs amounting to $ 300 per year; that she sometimes deposited the money to her credit, sometimes to the credit of her husband; and that either checked on the accounts. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial