Mills v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 12 February 1891
• Citation: 15 S.W. 518
• Parties: MILLS v. HUNT et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

15 S.W. 518

MILLS v. HUNT et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 12, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Logan county.

John E Du Bose, for appellant.

Wilbur F. Browder, for appellees.

PRYOR J.

This action was instituted to set aside a conveyance made by B. W Hunt to his brother G. W. Hunt, in fraud, as is alleged, of the rights of creditors. There was a return of no property and hence the power of the chancellor to cancel the deed, if the facts alleged are sustained by the testimony. The father of the appellees lived in Logan county, and at his death owned a valuable tract of land upon which was an incumbrance by mortgage of $4,000. He left several children surviving him, and the appellee G. W. Hunt, it seems, purchased of the adult children their interests in this land, and among them the interest of his brother B. W. Hunt. The mortgage was foreclosed, and the land sold, and purchased by G. W. Hunt who was desirous of owning the homestead, and of securing to the minor children their interests, subject to this lien. He seems to have paid the mortgage debt off, or nearly so, and there is nothing in the record showing that he had no means with which to make these purchases; in fact, his compliance with his contract negatives any such conclusion, when there is an entire absence of proof showing that he was buying this land for some one else. There is nothing unreasonable in the purchase by him of his brother's interest, but, on the contrary, his entire conduct shows his purpose to own all the homestead. He swears he paid his brother in cash, and it is not attempted to be shown that he was obtaining the land for less than its value. That the two brothers while in Texas may have acted badly in reference to business transactions is not competent, even in determining the issue made in this case. The brothers may now live together, or the vendor may still be on the farm, yet the evidence of fraud is wanting. Fraud will not be implied by reason of the relation of the parties and while such a fact may lessen the effect of their statements when other circumstances exist pointing to fraud, still, when the ability to pay is shown, and the purchase by one of a family of the entire homestead, and a compliance with his contract or a readiness to do so, slight circumstances should not be taken hold of to cancel a transaction that is both natural and reasonable, and what, under the circumstances, the party...