Mathews v. Converse

• Decision Date: 01 November 1910
• Citation: 83 Conn. 511,77 A. 961
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MATHEWS v. CONVERSE et al.

77 A. 961

83 Conn. 511

MATHEWS

v. CONVERSE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 1, 1910.

Appeal from Superior Court, Tolland County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Action by Eugenia C. Mathews against Mira L. Converse and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Charles E. Perkins and Ralph O. Wells, for appellants.

Edward D. Robbins and Warren D. Chase, for appellee.

THAYER, J. The complaint states that the plaintiff obtained a judgment against three of the defendants, Mira L. Converse, Lillia A. Lee. and Louis S. Converse, at the September term, 1905, of the superior court for Tolland county; that the judgment was partially satisfied, only; and that a lien for the balance due upon the judgment was placed upon the property now sought to be foreclosed. It is alleged that this property was attached on May 23, 1905, upon the original writ in the action, as the property of the defendants above named, and that they are, as to the plaintiff, the actual owners of the property, but that in September and October, 1903, and in January, 1904, the different parcels of land comprising the property attached had been conveyed by them to others of the defendants with the fraudulent intent, which was known to the grantees, to avoid the claims upon which the judgment was based. The court found the foregoing allegations of fact to be true, and also found that the judgment obtained was based upon a claim against the firstmentioned defendants as sureties upon the official bond of one Sheehan as one of the administrators of the estate of Julius Converse, who died in 1892, that a prior suit upon the bond was brought in 1899 before the administrator's liability had been fixed, and that after such liability had been judicially determined that action was withdrawn and the attachment therein released and a new action, that in which the judgment was obtalned was simultaneously instituted and a new attachment made.

The only question in the case upon the trial was whether the attempted conveyances were fraudulent as against the plaintiff. There were allegations in the complaint that the conveyances were not made in the ordinary course of business nor upon adequate consideration; but it is unnecessary to consider whether the court would have been justified in holding that they were voluntary and constructively fraudulent because it has found that they were actually fraudulent, and if the evidence supports this finding the judgment rendered was correct although full value was paid for the property by the grantees. Trumbull, Trustee, v. Hewitt, 65 Conn. 60, 73, 31 Atl. 492.

The defendants claimed that to render the conveyances actually fraudulent it must appear from the evidence that the grantors, by making the conveyances, intended to avoid the payment of an obligation to the plaintiff, or to hinder her in the collection of it; that the grantees had knowledge of that fraudulent intent and participated in it by accepting the conveyances; and that if it had not been conveyed the property would have been available to the plaintiff in satisfaction or part satisfaction of her debt. The overruling of these claims is assigned for error; but it does not appear from the finding that they were overruled, and the finding...