Lukins v. Aird
Decision Date | 01 December 1867 |
Citation | 18 L.Ed. 750,73 U.S. 78,6 Wall. 78 |
Parties | LUKINS v. AIRD |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL (submitted) from the District Court of the United States for Western Arkansas. Aird being indebted, and having subsequently failed, either sold, or conveyed under a pretence of a sale, certain town lots, at Fort Smith, Arkansas, which he owned, and which had cost him, it seemed, $1900, to one Spring. Spring paid him $1200 in money; agreeing that Aird should have the use of two of the lots for one year free of rent, and with a privilege, so long as Spring did not desire to make any use of them himself, or to sell them, of renting them at $100 a year—the money paid being made less on account of this right to use the lots rent free for the year. Aird was at this time a single man, but was married directly afterwards, and occupied the two lots from November 23, 1853, till the spring of 1856. Lukins, one of his creditors, now filed a bill against both Aird and Spring, alleging that the transaction was fraudulent in fact and in law, and praying that the conveyance might be declared void, and the property subjected to the claims of creditors. The court below, conceiving that the proofs established no fraud in fact, and apparently, that the interest reserved was a part of the consideration, and not of great value, dismissed the bill. Lukins appealed, and the case was now here for review.
Mr. A. H. Garland, for the appellant, went into an analysis of the evidence to show fraud in fact, and contended, also, that independently of this the case showed such fraud in law as vitiated the deed; referring to the statutes of 13 and 27 Elizabeth, and to the commentary on them, in Twyne's Case,1 where goods were sold, and possession retained.
No opposing counsel.
It is not important to inquire, whether, as a matter of fact, the defendants had a purpose to defraud the creditors of Aird, for the fraud in this case is an inference of law, on which the court is as much bound to pronounce the conveyances in question void as to creditors, as if the fraudulent intent were directly proved. There is no necessity of any general discussion of the provisions of the statutes of Elizabeth, concerning fraudulent and voluntary conveyances, as this suit is within narrow limits, and the principle on which we rest our decision too well settled for controversy. The law will not permit a debtor, in failing circumstances, to sell his land, convey it by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Benedict v. Ratner
...re Purtell (D. C.) 215 F. 191; In re Leslie-Judge Co. (C. C. A.) 272 F. 886. Compare Frost v. Warren, 42 N. Y. 204; also, Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. 78, 18 L. Ed. 750; Robinson v. Elliot, 22 Wall. 513, 22 L. Ed. 758; Smith v. Craft, 123 U. S. 436, 8 S. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267; Means v. Dowd, 12......
-
MacLaren v. Kramer
...793, 42 A. 510; Hoppe Hardware Co. v. Bain, 21 Okla. 177, 95 P. 765; Means v. Dowd, 128 U.S. 273, 32 L.Ed. 429, 9 S.Ct. 65; Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. 78, 18 L.Ed. 750; v. Wagness, 1 N.D. 62, 44 N.W. 1014. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff and remained with him during the trial. Rice ......
- Adler-Goldman Commission Company v. Phillips
-
McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Caldwell
... ... conveyance, irrespective of intent, is a fraud on creditors ... First Nat. Bank v. Comfort, 4 Dak. 167, 28 N.W. 855; ... Lukins et al. v. Aird et al., 6 Wall. 78, 18 L.Ed ... 750; Switz v. Bruce, 20 N.W. 639; Chenery v ... Palmer, 6 Cal. 119; section 3849, Rev. Codes 1899; ... ...