Lynes v. Holt

• Decision Date: 07 December 1927
• Docket Number: No. 25895.,25895.
• Citation: 1 S.W.2d 121
• Parties: LYNES v. HOLT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 S.W.2d 121

LYNES v. HOLT et al.

No. 25895.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 7, 1927.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled December 30, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; Emil Roehrig, Judge.

Suit by W. D. Lynes against S. P. Holt and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

D. W. Peters, of Jefferson City, for appellants.

Rodgers & Buffington, of Mexico, Mo., and N. T. Cave, of Fulton, for respondent.

RAGLAND, J.

This is a suit in equity to set aside a voluntary conveyance from husband to wife, on the ground that it was fraudulent as to the former's creditors.

On the 15th day of November, 1916, S. P. Holt conveyed, without consideration, to his wife, Sarah F. Holt, a farm of 100 acres in Callaway county, and also his residence property in the town of New Bloomfield, in said county. After making this conveyance, he had left 30 shares of the capital stock of the Holt-Taylor Mercantile Company, of the par value of $100 each, and a lot in New Bloomfield, on which there were a two-story brick building, used for mercantile purposes, a small warehouse, and a barn.

With respect to the values of the property conveyed and that retained by Holt, the plaintiff's evidence tended to show the following: The reasonable market value of the farm at the time of the conveyance was from $5,000 to $5,500, and that of the residence property from $3,000 to $3,500. Holt bought the lot on which the store building was located, and erected that building in 1912 or 1913 at a total cost of $8,000, but, on November 15, 1916, it was of the reasonable market value of only $6,500. At that time it was leased to the Holt-Taylor Mercantile Company at a rental of $400 per year. As going to the value of the capital stock of the Mercantile Company, it was shown that its only assets consisted of a stock of general merchandise and book accounts due it for merchandise sold. The stock was of the value of $10,500. The face value of the book accounts at all times ran, according to Mr. Holt's recollection, from $5,000 to $7,000. What percentage, if any, were against solvent persons, that is, the extent to which they possessed actual as distinguished from face value, the evidence left dark. The indebtedness of the company on the date in question aggregated $11,750. The company continued in business, however, for approximately six years thereafter before making an assignment for the benefit of creditors.

At the time of making the conveyance to his wife, Holt was indebted to the plaintiff on a promissory note in the sum of $3,500. He was indebted on other obligations to the extent of $3,700, making his total indebtedness $7,200. Plaintiff recovered a judgment on his note against Holt on July 23, 1923, and sued out an execution. Subsequently the execution was returned unsatisfied because no property could be found upon which to levy it.

Holt, who was called as a witness for plaintiff, testified that his reason for making the conveyance to his wife was this: He had just been advised by his physician that he had kidney trouble, and, believing that he did not have long to live, he desired while it was yet time to make a suitable provision for his wife after his death. He was then about 70 years of age, and she a year or two younger. She died before the institution of this suit.

Defendants called two witnesses, F. O. Link and F. W. Enloe, by whom they offered to prove the value of Holt's lot and store building in New Bloomfield on November 15, 1916. The court ruled that from the preliminary showing made they were not qualified to give an opinion. Defendants made no further offer of evidence.

No question is raised as to the pleadings or the parties. The petition charged that the conveyance from Holt to his wife was made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the former's creditors, and that it had in fact so operated. This was put in issue by the answer.

The trial court, in addition to finding the issues...