Manchester Bank of St. Louis v. Harrington
| Decision Date | 03 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | 18507 |
| Parties | MANCHESTER BANK OF ST. LOUIS v. HARRINGTON ET AL. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; John W. McElhinney Judge.
Bill by the Manchester Bank of St. Louis against Julia H Harrington and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, and bill dismissed.
This is a bill in equity instituted by the plaintiff in the circuit court of St. Louis county against the defendants for the purpose of setting aside and canceling a certain deed of trust, whereby Joseph F. Harrington, deceased, and his wife conveyed the real estate described in the petition to the defendant Bellif as trustee to secure three notes aggregating $14,000, made by said Harrington to the defendant O’Leary dated June 27, 1910, and recorded July 22d, same year. The cause of action stated is an alleged fraudulent conveyance of said property by said Harrington to said Bellif to secure said notes made to said O’Leary. The trial court found the issues for the plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly and the defendants appealed the cause to this court.
No point is made on the pleadings, so they will receive no further consideration. As we are asked to reverse the findings of the chancellor, it will be necessary to set forth much of the evidence introduced; this has been admirably done in narration form by counsel for defendants, the appellants in their statement of the case, which is substantially as follows:
The plaintiff called as a witness the defendant Julia H. Harrington. She testified: That she was married in the year 1898. That at that time she was living at 2305 Olive street with the defendant O’Leary, her brother. That he supported her. After she was married she and her husband continued to live at the same address with her brother, the defendant O’Leary. Her brother, throughout her married life and after her husband’s death up to the time of the suit, continued to send her $15 or $20 a week with the understanding that it was to be used as she saw fit, and that any part she did not use personally she was to hold or to invest for him. In the year 1900 or 1901 he sent her $500 at one time, and in the latter part of 1901 about $1,400, with the understanding that she was to invest it for him if she saw an opportunity. She turned over the entire $1,400 to her husband, together with $500 of O’Leary’s money that she had saved, and also various other amounts ranging from $40 to $100 at a time which she had saved up out of the moneys that O’Leary had sent her. That her husband made a memorandum of these amounts, and that it was understood between them that whatever money she turned over to him was O’Leary’s money, and that he was to pay it back to O’Leary. About the year 1908 her husband went into the Victor Motor Car Company as president. That prior to that time he had been working for Dodd, Mead & Co. At one time, about Christmas, her husband paid off a loan of $5,000 on the property in controversy, and stated to her that it was a present from himself and her brother. Her husband often told her that he got money from O’Leary, but she never asked him how much. About the time the notes secured by the deed of trust in controversy were made, Mr. O’Leary and Mr. Harrington got together and figured out the amount which her husband owed O’Leary, and it amounted to $14,000, as near as they could get at it. The figures were made up from papers that Mr. O’Leary had and from a memorandum book that her husband kept. That that $14,000 included money she had turned over to her husband, and also money that Mr. O’Leary had given her directly. That it included the $5,000 which went to pay off the mortgage. In 1903 she lived in South Webster at another place which they owned. That in 1904 they moved to the property in controversy. Her husband’s salary before he went into the Victor Motor Car Campany was $20 a week and commissions, the amount of which she did not know. That his salary with the Victor Motor Car Company was $30 a week. They valued the property in controversy at $20,000. That the other property where they lived in South Webster was sold, and that $1,250 of the price went into the Victor Automobile Company. That her husband bought the ground on which the factory was located. That they acquired another piece of property, which was paid for by Mr. Harrington, across the street from the property in controversy, in 1907. That it was paid out of money that he had saved and money which she had given him. That the property in controversy was a nice 12-room frame residence on several acres of ground; the lot being 265 feet front. That she lived there since 1904. She had never paid any interest to Mr. O’Leary on the debt. That she was dependent on him for a living; had no one else to support her and her children. That he had aided her before she was married, while she was married, and since she was a widow. That Mr. Harrington was ill a great part of the time.
On cross-examination she testified: That at the time of Mr. Harrington’s death, she thought that the Victor Automobile Company was in a prosperous condition. That she did not know until some months after Mr. Harrington’s death that the company was not thoroughly solvent and able to pay all its debts. That during 1899 to 1905 and 1906, Mr. Harrington was quite sick, and that her support depended mainly on what she got from Mr. O’Leary at that time. That in addition to his own family, Mr. Harrington had a brother who was dependent on him and an invalid mother whom he was maintaining at St. Vincent’s Institution. That he paid her expenses there every month. While she was living in the new house (that is, the property in controversy) on the occasion of one visit, Mr. O’Leary gave her $350 at one time, which she turned over to Mr. Harrington. That that portion of Mr. O’Leary’s money which she turned over to Mr. Harrington she did not consider a gift; she expected Mr. Harrington to pay it back. That Mr. Harrington kept a record of it, and that he used this record in figuring up the amount of his indebtedness to Mr. O’Leary at the time the three notes aggregating $14,000 were given. That she did not know what did become of this memorandum. That he generally had that book in his pocket, but did not have it in his pocket at the time of his death, or among any of his papers at the house. That he kept most of his papers in the safe at the factory, and that those in charge of the factory had access to everything and took charge of everything after Mr. Harrington died in May, 1911. She continued, after the time when the settlement was reached by which it was determined that Harrington owed O’Leary $14,000, to still get money from O’Leary. That none of that was included in the $14,000.
The defendant Joseph J. O’Leary, called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, testified: That he was a poster artist. That his business was drawing advertising posters, theatrical posters, circus posters. That he had been in that business for 30 years. That he was living with his sister at the time she married in 1898 or 1899. That he was single. That he was her means of support. That at the time she married he was working for various newpapers, the Star, Globe-Democrat, and Republic, in fact all the different papers around St. Louis. That he drew cartoons for some of the Chicago papers and also outside work. That his earnings averaged $35 to $40 a week. That he left St. Louis about the year his sister married, went to Chicago, engaged in the same sort of work there, and earned about the same amount of money. That he continued to send his sister money, the amount of which averaged about $15 a week. He stayed in Chicago only a few months, and then went to Cincinnati and went into the lithographing business, being employed by a lithographing concern. That in the evenings he made pen and ink sketches for commercial houses, and that his earnings averaged $35, $40, and $45 a week. He remained in Cincinnati 5 or 6 years, commencing 1900 or 1901 or 1902, and running down to 1907, or later. He still continued to make his sister weekly allowances with the understanding that what she did not need for her own use was to be reserved for him. That he never kept track of the money he sent his sister, but they talked the matter over from time to time and both knew about how much it was. The first time he sent a large amount was about 1901. That in 1900 she had accumulated about $500 that belonged to him. That in 1901 he sent her about $1,400, and that, with what she had saved up, aggregated about $2,000. That this money she was to hold to purchase a piece of ground if she saw an opportunity for a good investment. That she turned it over to Mr. Harrington in 1901 or 1902. That Mr. Harrington made a memorandum of it and showed it to him. That he had a slip with $500 at the top and $1,400 below, and said: "Joe, I owe you this amount; I got it from Jule." He did not give him the memorandum. That he (O’Leary) did not suggest to Harrington that he wanted any note or duebill. Outside of the weekly payments he did not remenber any other large amount that he let his sister have. That occasionally with his regular remittances he would slip in an extra $20 that was supposed to be set aside as his money. That all the money he ever sent her was sent in currency in letters. That he never sent any checks. After about 1901 he began dealing with Mr. Harrington direct, and in that year let him have about $1,800. That he brought over $2,500 from Cincinnati in currency and loaned Harrington $1,800. That Harrington never paid back that money with the exception of about $50. That he never asked Harrington what he wanted the money for. About 1902 he began to get hold of considerable money. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial