Murphy v. Casey

• Decision Date: 31 March 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22700.,22700.
• Citation: 187 N.W. 416,151 Minn. 480
• Parties: MURPHY v. CASEY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

151 Minn. 480

187 N.W. 416

MURPHY

v.CASEY et al.

No. 22700.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 31, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Aitkin County; C. W. Stanton, Judge.

Action by F. E. Murphy against J. Ambrose Casey, otherwise known as Ambrose Casey, and another, to set aside a conveyance of certain real property. Verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial the defendant Emma Casey appeals. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In an action to set aside a conveyance of real property as in fraud of creditors, the evidence is held to sustain the verdict of the jury to the effect that the conveyance complained of was fraudulent.

Claims arising in tort, as well as those of a contractual nature, are within the protection of the statute against fraudulent conveyances.

A recital in the deed of conveyance of the payment of a consideration is not evidence against the creditors of the grantor.

The burden to prove such payment is upon the grantee, and, where the transaction is between near relatives, as mother and son, the failure to do so renders the conveyance voluntary, and therefore presumptively fraudulent as to creditors. L. T. Mahany, of Aitken, for appellant.

Washburn, Bailey & Mitchell, of Duluth, for respondent.

BROWN, C. J.

Action to set aside a conveyance of certain real property by defendant J. Ambrose Casey to defendant Emma Casey as fraudulent and void as to the creditors of the grantor. Certain specific issues were submitted to a jury, and a verdict rendered thereon sustaining the alleged fraud. Defendant Emma Casey appealed from an order denying a new trial.

There is no controversy in the facts, the evidence being undisputed on the record. The legal inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the facts presents the only question in the case. It appears that in March, 1918, plaintiff brought an action against defendant J. Ambrose Casey in the district court of St. Louis county, and therein, after due trial of the issues presented by the pleadings, recovered a verdict against him in the sum of $11,000. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial was denied on September 23, 1918, and on October 11, 1918, a judgment on the verdict was rendered and docketed in plaintiff's favor for the amount of the verdict, with interest and costs of suit. Execution thereon was subsequently issued, and by the sheriff returned unsatisfied.

At the time of the commencement of the action Casey, defendant therein, was the owner of the land in question in this action, and continued such owner until he conveyed the same to defendant, Emma Casey, two days after his motion for a new trial had been denied. Though the deed so conveying the land bears date September 18th, four days prior to the denial of the motion, it was not in fact delivered until September 25th; the jury so found under proper instructions of the court. The deed was duly recorded on that day. Whether it was delivered to the register of deeds for record by defendant J. Ambrose Casey or by the grantee, defendant Emma Casey, does not appear. The relationship between the Caseys is that of mother and son.

The record does not show the basis or foundation of plaintiff's claim in that action; whether it was in tort or on contract. However Mrs. Casey knew of the pendency of the action, and was present at the trial thereof, either as a witness or because of her interest in the welfare of her son. From the relationship between them, and the presence of Mrs. Casey at that trial, the jury was justified in reaching the conclusion that she was familiar with the facts of the case, and knew of the rendition of the verdict therein. She was not a witness on the trial of this action; neither was the son. Defendant Ambrose is insolvent, and was in that financial condition when he conveyed the land in question to his mother; at least the evidence, without further showing on the point, will justify a finding to that effect when the cause shall be presented to the trial court for formal findings supplemental to the special verdicts of the jury. Such are the facts.

The jury specially found (1) that the deed, though dated September 18, 1918, was not in fact delivered to the grantee until the 25th; (2) that it was executed and delivered with the intention on the part of Casey, the grantor, of hindering, delaying, and defrauding his creditors; and (3) that Mrs. Casey had knowledge of facts which, if inquired into, would have disclosed the fraud of her son.

[1] 1. The question presented is whether the evidence sustains the verdict in those...