McKnight v. Bright

• Decision Date: 30 April 1829
• Citation: 2 Mo. 110
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: MCKNIGHT AND BRADY, ADM'RS, v. JOHN BRIGHT, &C

2 Mo. 110

MCKNIGHT AND BRADY, ADM'RS,

v.JOHN BRIGHT, &C

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1829.

APPEAL IN CHANCERY FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT

MCGIRK, C. J.^a1

The complainants' bill was dismissed: to reverse the decree of dismissal, the cause is brought to this court. The bill alleges that, on the 1st of August, 1819, John McKnight, one of the intestates, and Thomas Brady, the other intestate, did make and execute their deed of conveyance, of and to a certain piece of ground in the town of St. Louis, to one Josiah Bright and one Charles Sanguinet and their heirs in fee, who were at that time partners in trade. That on the face of the deed there is an acknowledgment that the consideration for the land was fifteen hundred dollars, and that the deed acknowledges the receipt thereof, in the usual form. That in truth no money was paid, but that to secure the payment of the consideration, two notes were executed by Sanguinet & Bright, for $750 each, to McKnight & Brady, on the 24th November, 1819. The one payable in January, and the other in June succeeding. No mention is made in these notes about the consideration thereof. The bill avers that these notes were given to secure the payment of the purchase-money. The bill further alleges, that a short time thereafter Sanguinet & Bright, having contracted debts to a large amount, dissolved partnership, and that being so indebted, they did on the 4th May, 1820, by a deed convey a part of said land to one Tholizon, the brother-in-law of said Sanguinet & Bright, for the expressed consideration of about $1,600. That at the same time, Sanguinet conveyed by deed his half of the residue of the land to Bright and withdrew from the firm. That on the 19th May, 1820, Bright made a deed of mortgage of the premises to his father who lived in Massachusetts, to secure the payment of $8,000 due by Josiah Bright to John his father. That shortly thereafter Sanguinet & Bright took the benefit of the insolvent debtors' act. The bill shows, also, that other creditors of Sanguinet & Bright obtained judgment against them, had execution and levied the same on the mortgaged premises, had the same sold after Bright's mortgage was made, and the same was bought in by J. Bright, or for him, by his agent, for $50. That John Bright afterwards made a lease of the premises to John Shackford, who is also a defendant in the cause in chancery. The bill charges that the deed from Bright & Sanguinet to Tholizon is fraudulent, as being made on the eve of insolvency, and the same being made on a feigned consideration. The proof is, that Sanguinet, one of the firm, owed Tholizon about $1,200, and not $1,500, and for that the deed was made. The bill charges that the deed from Sanguinet to Bright was fraudulent for the same reasons. There is no positive proof for what reason this deed was made, but it is assigned by the appellee's counsel that there is enough on the record to show that it was in consideration that Bright had joined in the conveyance to Tholizon to pay Sanguinet's debt, and that Bright was to pay the debts of the firm. The bill insists that the mortgage deed by Josiah Bright to his father is fraudulent for the same reasons.

The proof is, as appears by the answer of John Bright, that the firm of San guinet & Bright owed him at the date of the execution of the mortgage about $3,000, and that Josiah Bright...