Matthews v. Torinus

• Decision Date: 19 August 1875
• Citation: 22 Minn. 132
• Parties: ELLEN MATTHEWS <I>vs.</I> LOUIS E. TORINUS & others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 132

22 Minn. 132

ELLEN MATTHEWS vs. LOUIS E. TORINUS & others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

August 19, 1875.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Washington county, entered upon the report of a referee.

L. R. Cornman and Henry J. Horn, for appellant.

McCluer & Marsh, for respondents.

BERRY, J.

The referee before whom this case was tried below finds the following facts. On June 16, 1868, John Matthews, then and ever since the husband of the plaintiff, entered into a written agreement with one Wheeler for the purchase of certain land situate in Washington county, Matthews, on his part, agreeing to pay for the same $3,000.00 as follows: $200.00 down, $800.00 by November 1, 1868, $1,000.00 by November 1, 1869, and $1,000.00 by November 1, 1870; and Wheeler, on his part, agreeing to convey said land to Matthews upon payment of the last instalment of $1,000.00. On the execution of the agreement Matthews paid the $200.00, and about November 5, 1868, the further sum of $800.00. On November 5, 1868, Wheeler executed a warranty deed of the premises to the plaintiff, and, to secure payment of the unpaid $2,000.00 of the purchase price, Matthews at the same time executed and delivered to Wheeler his two promissory notes, of $1,000.00 each, to secure which, plaintiff and Matthews executed and delivered to Wheeler a mortgage on the premises aforesaid. The mortgage was foreclosed for non-payment of the debt secured by it, and about the fall of 1871 the premises were redeemed by the plaintiff, who borrowed the redemption money of Samuel Matthews, a brother of her husband, John Matthews. The amount borrowed was something over $500.00, and, as security therefor, Samuel Matthews took the plaintiff's note, secured by a mortgage upon said premises, executed by plaintiff alone. John Matthews has paid about $500.00 of the borrowed money to Samuel Matthews, and the balance is unpaid. The referee further finds, in these words, "that the plaintiff has not, in fact, paid any part of the consideration money for said premises, and that all of said consideration which has been paid was paid by said John Matthews."

It is further found that prior to and on November 5, 1868, John Matthews was indebted to defendants, Torinus, Staples & Co., in the sum $52.15 for goods solds, etc., and that the account between them was continued till December, 1869, at which time the indebtedness of Matthews to them had largely increased; that on October 17, 1872, in the district court for Washington county, they recovered judgment against Matthews upon his said indebtedness for the sum of $1,315.42, which sum included the aforesaid indebtedness of $52.15. The judgment is unpaid, and has been duly docketed in said county.

As conclusions of law, the referee finds that the conveyance of November 5, 1868, from Wheeler to plaintiff, is fraudulent as against said defendants, and that plaintiff holds the land subject to a trust in their favor to the extent necessary to satisfy their judgment, etc.

Our statute (Gen. St. ch. 43, §§ 7, 8,) enacts that when a grant for a valuable consideration is made to one person, and the consideration therefor is paid by another, the conveyance shall be presumed fraudulent "as against the creditors, at that time, of the person paying the consideration;" and when a fraudulent intent is not disproved, a trust shall result in favor of such creditors to the extent that may be necessary to satisfy their just demands.

The consideration of the conveyance to plaintiff consisted of the right of John Matthews under his contract of purchase, which was turned in as part of the consideration at the time of the execution of the conveyance, of $800.00 in cash paid at the same time, and of the two promissory notes made at the same time, also by John Matthews, for $1,000.00 each. The payment of the consideration and the execution of the conveyance were, therefore, simultaneous; for the notes are to be considered as payment, because they evidenced a binding obligation upon their maker and operated as payment, in fact, for the land — that is to say, so that the grantor's title passed to the grantee absolutely. Gorton v. Massey, 12 Minn. 145; ...