Nadal v. Britton

• Citation: 112 N.C. 180,16 S.E. 914
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 28 February 1893
• Parties: NADAL, et al. v. BRITTON et al.

16 S.E. 914

112 N.C. 180

NADAL, et al.

v.BRITTON et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 28, 1893.

Fraudulent Conveyance—Knowledge of Grantee—Evidence.

1. Where the validity of a debt due defendant from her deceased husband is admitted, but the trust deed which he executed to secure such debt is attacked as in fraud of creditors, the burden of proof is on those alleging fraud, and they must prove not only the fraudulent intent of the grantor, but also that defendant had knowledge of and participated in such intent.

2. The fact that the husband was in debt at the time of the execution of the deed; that he had little property except the house and lot conveyed; and that the other creditors knew nothing of the debt due to his wife, or of the deed in trust to secure it, —does not tend to establish fraudulent intent on the part of the husband.

3. The bona fides of the debt being admitted, and the execution and delivery of the trust deed being established, the fact that it was withheld from registration for about two y'ears does not show fraud, there being no evidence that while so withholding the deed defendant induced any one to give credit to her husband on the faith of his being the absolute owner of the property.

4. The fact that defendant told two of plaintiffs, when they visited her husband in his last illness, that he owed nothing, and it would not be necessary to sell the house and lot, which she wished her daughters to have, does not tend to show that she had any knowledge that her husband, when he borrowed her money and secured its repayment by the deed in trust, was contriving to hinder or defraud creditors.

Appeal from superior court, Wilson county; Bryan, Judge.

Action by E. M. Nadal and others against E. E. Britton, administrator, and others, to set aside a trust deed. From the judgment setting aside the deed, defendants appeal. Reversed.

T. W. Strange, for appellants.

J. E. Woodard, Batclielor & Devereux, G. W. Mount, and Jacob Battle, for appellees.

Burwell, J. The plaintiffs are creditors of R. W. King, deceased. The defendants arehis administrator and his widow. The object of this action is to have declared fraudulent and Void a deed in trust, made in February, 1887, by R. W. King to Peter Hines, to secure a debt of $2,500, due from him to his wife. This deed was not registered till January, 1880, a few days after the death of King. Two issues were submitted to the jury, (neither party objecting thereto,) as follows: (1) AVas the trust deed executed and delivered? (2) Was said deed made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors? His honor instructed the jury to answer the first issue in the affirmative. To this the plaintiffs did not except. The fact that R. W. King was justly indebted to his wife, at the date of the execution and delivery of this deed, to the amount thereby secured to her, does not seem to have been controverted. Indeed, the amended complaint makes no allegation that the debt was not a just one, and avers that " the defendant Carrie J. King holds a note against her deceased husband, dated February 15, 1887, for $2,500." The bona fides of the debt and the execution and delivery of the trust deed are thusestablished. His honor was asked to charge the jury that there was no evidence...