Long v. Valleau

• Decision Date: 09 May 1893
• Citation: 55 N.W. 31,87 Iowa 675
• Parties: LONG v. VALLEAU.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

87 Iowa 675

55 N.W. 31

LONG

v.VALLEAU.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 9, 1893.

Appeal from district court, O'Brien county; Scott M. Ladd, Judge.

This is an action in equity against the defendant to discover alleged assets of the estate of one Frank Teabout, deceased, and to have her decreed to hold certain real property in trust for his estate. The decree, in part, found for plaintiff, and, as to some of his claims, his petition was dismissed. Both parties appeal.H. E. Long, for appellant.

Milt. H. Allen and Levi Bullis, for appellee.

KINNE, J.

1. As the pleadings in this case are voluminous, a condensed statement of the matters in issue will be made: Plaintiff, as administrator of one F. Teabout, deceased, charges that for some time prior to his death he had been indebted to divers parties to the amount of many thousand dollars; that during said years he carried on business in the name of defendant, employing his own capital therein; that this was done in order to keep his property from his creditors; that defendant is in possession of many thousand dollars' worth of personal property, which she has appropriated to her own use, and which was in fact Teabout's property; that defendant is the only child and daughter of F. Teabout and Emily Teabout, deceased, and that F. Teabout, prior to his death, made his home with said daughter; that in June, 1884, Emily Teabout, wife of F. Teabout, died, possessed of several thousand dollars worth of personal property, leaving her husband and daughter surviving her; that F. Teabout conspired with defendant for the purpose of cheating and defrauding his creditors, and failed and refused, prior to his death, to have set off to him his one-third share in his wife's estate, which share defendant has appropriated. Defendant admits that F. Teabout died intestate, and was, for some prior to his decease, indebted, in large sums, to divers persons; that he carried on business in defendant's name, for her and with her money, and says that, by reason of the fact that he had used and appropriated her money to his own use, he was largely indebted to her. Admits that Emily Teabout was the wife of F. Teabout, and mother of defendant, and that she died in June, 1884; that all the personal property she had she gave to the defendant prior to her death; that defendant is administratrix of her estate, which is unsettled; that said Emily executed a will, which has been lost, whereby she gave to defendant all her property, real and personal; that said Emily, in her lifetime, paid certain debts of F. Teabout, amounting to more than his share in her estate; that said F. Teabout knew of said will and gift, and approved the same, and waived any claim on said Emily's estate; that defendant has no assets in her hands belonging to the estate of F. Teabout. She denies all other allegations of the petition. Plaintiff afterwards filed an amendment to his petition, wherein he charged that all the real estate held by defendant, and its proceeds, were the property of F. Teabout, and that the title was placed in her name for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors. He also sets out the names of several parties who have filed claims against the estate of F. Teabout, and which have been allowed, amounting, in the aggregate, to about $55,000. It is averred that said indebtedness was contracted by him, or by the firm of Teabout & Valleau, of which he was a member, from February 1, 1879, to October 1, 1880; that said claimants were all creditors of F. Teabout when the defendant took title to said real estate. Defendant denies all the allegations in said amendment not otherwise admitted, modified, avoided, or explained; admits she holds title to real estate, but says she holds the same bona fide, and in her own right; admits the filing and allowance of the claims against F. Teabout's estate, and that said indebtedness was incurred by the firm of Teabout & Valleau, of which firm F. Teabout was a member, from February 1, 1879, to April 1, 1881. In the fifth division of her answer, defendant says she is the sole heir of F. Teabout, and is his daughter. She then pleads that the title to all of the tracts of land mentioned in plaintiff's petition and amendment was on January 5, 1883, and during F. Teabout's lifetime, adjudicated to be in defendant's grantors, in a case wherein Charles Ray and others were plaintiffs, and Frank Teabout and others were defendants; that the plaintiffs in said case were the same parties as those for whose benefit this suit is prosecuted, and the claim made is the same; that all the rights of defendant to said real estate were acquired by her from F. Teabout and other defendants in said case. She also pleads the five-year statute of limitations, and avers that plaintiff had knowledge and notice of all the claims and causes of action herein for more than five years prior to the bringing of this action. In another division of her answer she pleads that plaintiff has been guilty of such laches as should prevent a recovery. Plaintiff, for a reply, says he denies that defendant holds said real estate bona fide, and in her own right; admits that Ray and others brought an action against Teabout and others, wherein a decree was entered against plaintiffs; denies all other allegations in said answer. Plaintiff afterwards filed a further amendment to his petition averring that on June 19, 1882, F. Teabout owned certain lands, (describing them;) that they were sold at sheriff's sale, and purchased by G. W. Pitts; that June 1, 1883, Pitts assigned the sheriff's certificate therefor to Levi Bullis for an alleged consideration of $560.83, and afterwards the sheriff executed a deed to Bullis for said lands. It is averred that Bullis paid no part of the consideration for said lands; that Teabout paid therefor, and the title was taken in Bullis' name for the benefit of Teabout; that in August, 1883, said Bullis and wife deeded the lands to defendant; that defendant paid nothing therefor, and knew when she took title that F. Teabout had furnished the money to pay for the land. It is also alleged that in November, 1883, F. Teabout owned a mortgage and note for $4,646, executed by Warren Walker and wife to Emily Teabout to secure the payment of that amount of money upon the purchase of certain lands, which were purchased by Walker, and the deed taken in the name of one Winterble from F. Teabout; that said mortgage was held in trust under the name of Emily Teabout; in payment thereof, Walker conveyed certain lands to defendant; that said conveyances were made to defendant without consideration, and in fraud of creditors of F. Teabout. It is also claimed that, in 1882 and 1883, Walker purchased certain tax certificates on lands known as the “Wellington Lands,” which certificates were paid for by F. Teabout, and assigned, and, by request of Teabout, deeds taken therefor by one Harker; that Harker had no interest therein, and in 1883 quitclaimed same to defendant, she knowing that F. Teabout was the actual owner of the lands. Another transaction, somewhat similar, is set out. The court below found that the Harker tax deeds were taken in trust for F. Teabout, and that he owned the land described therein, at his death; that Emily Teabout, at her death, owned certain real estate in which F. Teabout had a one-third interest in value; that defendant had collected rents of real estate belonging to F. Teabout, in the sum of $225; that a mortgage given by one Lyons was the property of F. Teabout, and which defendant had collected, amounting to $240.21. As to all the other claims of plaintiff, his bill was dismissed. Both parties appeal.

2. We have endeavored to carefully examine the very elaborate record presented in this case. The transactions appearing therein are so numerous that we cannot be expected to treat, in detail, all of them. To do so would extend this opinion to an unwarrantable length. Plaintiff's case is bottomed upon the claim that defendant has fraudulently obtained possession of, and now holds title to, a large amount of real and personal property, which in fact belonged to her father, F. Teabout, deceased; that she paid no consideration therefor, but the same was transferred to her, by her said father, either directly or through other persons, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors; that she has received large sums as the proceeds or rental of said property; that she should be held to account to the estate for such rents; and that the title to said real estate should be decreed to be held by her in trust for said estate. The large sum involved in this litigation,--variously estimated at from $50,000 to $125,000,--and the many questions of law and fact, have been as fully investigated as our limited time permitted. Some branches of plaintiff's case depend largely for support upon the testimony of the witnesses Warren Walker, W. T. Bowen, and Eva M. Bowen, his wife. As this record shows that Walker has been impeached, we shall give weight to his testimony in so far only as it is corroborated by other facts and circumstances appearing in the case. The testimony of both Bowen and his wife must be considered in the light of the fact that they seemed to have desired, for a consideration, to have testified favorably to the defendant. The consideration not having been paid to them, they now appear as willing witnesses for the plaintiff. We do not wish to be understood as saying that they testified as they did by reason of any improper proposal or act or inducement given or held out to them by plaintiff or his counsel, but the Bowens' letters showed an anxiety on their part to dispose of the facts within their knowledge, to the defendant, for a large moneyed consideration,--a proposition, so far as this record shows, not made in response to any suggestions emanating from defendant or her counsel. In a general way, we may say that some of the evidence in this record is...