Miller v. Miller

• Decision Date: 29 June 1907
• Citation: 103 S.W. 962,206 Mo. 341
• Parties: MILLER v. MILLER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

103 S.W. 962

206 Mo. 341

MILLER v. MILLER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 29, 1907.

1. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — RIGHTS OF ORIGINAL PARTIES.

Though, if one conveys property to defraud creditors, equity will not aid him to recover it from the grantee, in an action by a former wife to recover the proceeds of property converted by defendant during their marriage, he could show that he placed title to the property in her to place it out of the reach of one asserting an unjust claim against him, afterwards decided in defendant's favor.

2. DIVORCE — ALIMONY — SETTLEMENT — CONCLUSIVENESS.

Where parties to a divorce suit agreed upon a division of the husband's property and the proceeds of property, the title to which had been previously placed in the wife, though it really belonged to him, was counted as part of his property and she received her share of the settlement, she could not afterwards recover such proceeds.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Adair County; Nat. M. Shelton, Judge.

Suit by Libbie U. Miller against Sanford J. Miller. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. F. Millan and Higbee & Mills, for appellant. Dysart & Mitchell and A. D. Risdon, for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

Plaintiff obtained a decree of divorce from defendant in 1901 in the circuit court of Randolph county, and she now brings this suit against him to recover certain sums of money which she alleges were hers and were collected by him and appropriated to his own use while they were husband and wife. The petition is in three counts. The first is for $1,850, the proceeds of a sale of a certain lot in Kirksville; the second for $627.40, proceeds of the sale of certain building association stock; and the third for $3,500, proceeds of the sale of certain other real estate in Kirksville. In his answer the defendant admits receiving the several sums of money and the appropriation of them to his own use, and justifies his acts by saying that the lots mentioned were really his, bought by him, and paid for with his own money, and the title was taken in the plaintiff's name, who was then his wife, for the reason that there was pending over him certain litigation wherein he was sued for a large sum, which both plaintiff and he believed to be unjust and without foundation in law or equity, and they agreed to put the title in her name to put the property beyond the reach of that claim, and with the understanding between them that she would hold the title in trust for him. And as to the building association stock the answer was that the defendant, desiring to buy 20 shares of such stock, was informed that the by-laws of the association would not allow him to own more than 10 shares. Therefore he took 10 shares in his own name and afterwards bought 4 shares in his wife's name. He paid his own money for the shares so purchased, and continued paying the regular assessments for a time, when he could no longer carry them, and therefore sold the 4 shares for $627.40; that the plaintiff was fully informed of this transaction and the reason why the stock was taken in her name. Then the answer continues to the effect that in October, 1900, the plaintiff brought suit against defendant for divorce and alimony in the circuit court of Adair county, where they resided, which suit was afterwards transferred to the circuit court of Randolph county by change of venue; that while the divorce suit was pending the parties thereto, with the assistance and under the advice of their respective attorneys, had an adjustment and settlement of their property interests, and it was then and there agreed that defendant should pay the plaintiff, in full settlement of all her claim, right, title, or interest in defendant's property, $3,000 in addition to what he had already paid her as temporary alimony in the case; that in the decree of divorce which followed it was adjudged that defendant should pay the plaintiff that sum, and in pursuance thereof he did so, and the plaintiff acknowledged full...