Nickle v. Emerson Mercantile & Manufacturing Co.

• Decision Date: 15 February 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 78
• Parties: NICKLE <I>et ux.</I> <I>v.</I> EMERSON MERCANTILE & MANUFACTURING CO.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 78

NICKLE et ux.

v. EMERSON MERCANTILE & MANUFACTURING CO.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 15, 1890.

Appeal from Pulaski chancery court; D. W. CARROLL, Chancellor.

Bill to subject lands held by Katherine Nickle, wife of William Nickle, to the payment of a debt owing the Emerson Mercantile & Manufacturing Company by said William Nickle. It appeared that Nickle and one Joseph A. Martin had been in the butcher business together as Martin & Nickle, and that plaintiff's claim was based on a judgment against this firm; that the firm quit business, claiming to be insolvent. Afterwards, William Nickle went into the butcher business again in his wife's name, and gradually accumulated a large amount of real estate and other property, all of which was in the name of the wife. This separate business of the wife was begun in April, 1882, and in April, 1886, they had accumulated property to the value of $12,000. Nickle and his wife claimed that their money was derived entirely from their business, and there was nothing in the testimony to show that at the time they started they had more than $650 derived from the sale of their homestead. Nickle was a bright, shrewd business man, and an excellent manager. The business was entirely in his control, and he decided all questions relating to the business, though everything was done in the wife's name. It appeared, too, that he had no fixed salary as manager for his wife, but used the money derived from the business as his own, and conducted all negotiations of a business character, whether pertaining to the butcher business or to purchasing and selling real estate. There was some testimony to show, too, that at the time the business was started Nickle had stated to several that he was going into business again, but in his wife's name, in order to keep his creditors off. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed.

Marshall & Coffman, for appellant. Blackwood & Williams, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The evidence discloses that the property in question was purchased with funds raised from a business owned and conducted by the insolvent husband under the cloak of his wife's name, which he used as a subterfuge to cover his property from claims of his creditors. The creditors have the right, therefore, to subject the property to the payment of their debts. Affirm.