Noble v. Davies

• Decision Date: 10 November 1887
• Citation: 4 S.E. 206
• Parties: Noble et al. v. Davies et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

4 S.E. 206

Noble et al.

v.Davies et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

November 10, 1887.

1. Husband and Wife—Antenuptial Settlement—Fraud on Cbeditobs—Knowledge

of Wife.

In an action against a husband and wife to set aside an antenuptial deed of marriage settlement, on the ground that the same was given with intent to defraud the creditors of the husband, and that the wife had connived at the fraud, the entire testimony showed that the wife, before marriage, had no knowledge of any fraud in the settlement. Held, that the court properly refused the request of the complainants to direct an issue out of chancery to try the question of fraud and connivance, and that a decree declaring the deed valid as to the wife was in accordance with the evidence.

2. Same—Antenuptial Settlement—Proof of Fraud.

Fraud cannot be presumed in an action to set aside a marriage settlement, but must be proved by clear and satisfactory evidence to have been concurred in by both parties. And this is so, irrespective of the amount of the husband's indebtedness, and even though his whole estate is included in the settlement.¹

Lacy and Richardson, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from circuit court of city of Lynchburg.

J. W. Daniel and E. 8. Broitm, for plaintiffs. Kean & Kean and J. H. Lewis, for defendants.

Faxintleboy, J. This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of the city of Lynchburg, rendered on the fourteenth day of May, 1885, in the chancery suit of John D. Noble and others, complainants, against A. M. Davies & Co. and others, defendants. The petition of appellants is limited to a prayer for appeal from so much only of the said decree of the said circuit court as refuses to direct an issue out of chancery, to try the question of fraud on the part of the defendant John R. Maben, and of guilty knowledge of and connivance therein on the part of the defendant Jessie M. Maben, in the antenuptial deed of marriage settlement of November 30, 1881, made by said John R. Maben for the benefit of the said Jessie M., (then Jessie M. Bremner,) in contemplation of a marriage between them, which marriage was duly solemnized December 1, 1881; and secondly from so much of the said decree as affirms the validity of the said deed of settlement as to the said Jessie M., the wife of the said John R. Maben.

The material facts disclosed by the record are as follows: The defendant John R. Maben, a citizen of Campbell county, conceded to have been worth $50,000 or more, and the defendant A. M. Davies, a citizen of Lynchburg, also estimated to have been worth at least $25,000, were before and on thethirtieth day of November, 1881, partners and brokers in Lynchburg, doing an apparently prosperous business. On the thirtieth of November, 1881, their said partnership was dissolved by mutual consent. During the course of their said partnership business, the said Arm had in their hands for negotiation a a number of negotiable notes drawn by one William T. Hart for large amounts, payable to Joseph Cloyd, (a citizen of Pulaski county of large wealth and assured credit,) and purporting to be indorsed by said Cloyd, whose name was on the backs of the said notes. The said A. M. Davies & Co. negotiated these notes; the defendant John R. Maben taking $10,000 of them on his individual account, and others of them were discounted by the complainants J. D. Noble, Scott & Noble, J. P. Krise, Winfree & Lloyd, etc. There is no imputation of bad faith on Davies & Co. in the negotiation of these notes. They had full confidence in the genuineness of Cloyd's indorsement upon them, which gave the paper its value, and in evidence of their bona fldes the partner J. R. Maben bought $10,000 of it for his individual account. At maturity of the said notes, Cloyd refused to pay them, and pronounced the indorsement of his name thereon a forgery. About this time William T. Hart, the maker of the said notes, absconded, and in suits upon it against Hart &' Cloyd, the indorsements of Cloyd's name thereon were proved and adjudicated forgeries, and the paper thus proved of no value. Thereupon the purchasers of the said notes asserted a liability on the firm of A. M. Davies & Co., as guarantors, and demanded of them to be reimbursed by them the sums of money which they, the purchasers, had paid to the said firm for the said forged and worthless notes. This the said firm declined to do, and denied their liability as guarantors. Suits at common law were instituted in the corporation court of Lynchburg by Noble, Scott & Noble, Krise, Winfree, etc., which were matured for hearing at the term which began December 1, 1881; but the suits were continued for the defendants at that term until the March term, 1882, when judgments for the plaintiffs in said suits were rendered to the aggregate amount of $17,853.33, principal, of which the sum of $9,453.33 was in favor of the plaintiffs J. D. Noble and Scott & Noble. By these forgeries J. R. Maben became the loser to the amount of $10,000, the aggregate of the said forged notes which he bought and held individually.

On the thirtieth of November, 1881, Miss Jessie M. Bremner, a lady of some 40 years of age, was residing at the Bedford Alum and Iron Springs, where she had been employed for nearly two years as mistress of the linen, and as housekeeper. John R. Maben was part owner of the said springs, and was the manager thereof, and he resided there also. He was a widower 60 years of age, and of Scottish birth, as was Miss Bremner. They had been acquainted since 1872, when Miss Bremner had been a visitor at said Maben's house, at the invitation of his grown daughter, who was then and has been ever since her warm and fast friend. In 1878 said Maben visited Miss Bremner at the house of a friend of hers in Richmond, where she was staying, and there contracted an engagement with her for a nuptial settlement and marriage between them, which said engagement subsisted and was adhered to by them, though the consummation was delayed and postponed until the said Maben could or should complete the extensive and costly improvements at the springs which he was then making, and should get released from that management, and could have a more private and satisfactory home. On the thirtieth of November, 1881, John R. Maben was at Amherst Court-House, and had prepared by his counsel there an antenuptial settlement in consideration of the intended marriage with said Jessie M. Bremner. This draft of marriage settlement Maben brought to Lynchburg that day, had a duplicate of it made, went out to the springs, and returned from there to Lynchburg about 7 p. M., bringing Miss Bremner with him. They: went to the clerk's office of the corporation court, where the clerk awaited them by the request of J. R. Maben. There said Maben and Miss Bremner signed and acknowledged bothof the said drafts, (the original and the duplicate,) and one of them so signed and acknowledged was delivered to the clerk, and by him was admitted to record. This deed of settlement conveyed all of said Maben's assets (except some specie and other articles of personalty) to Pitt Woodruff, (Maben's son-in-law,) as trustee, for the benefit of the said-Jessie M. Bremner after the said marriage. The duplicate of the said deed was then sent by J. R. Maben by a special messenger to Amherst Court-House for record, and it was there delivered to the clerk of Amherst county court before 12 midnight of the thirtieth day of November, 1881, by whom it was duly recorded the next day, December 1, 1881. J. R. Maben and Jessie M. Bremner returned to the Bedford Alum and Iron Springs on the thirtieth of November, 1881, and the next day, December 1, 1881, they were duly married at the Springs Hotel, where they resided. The property conveyed by the said deed of marriage settlement was, in a few days, placed in the possession of the said Pitt Woodruff, the trustee.

A. M. Davies, the partner of Maben, had, prior to the thirtieth of November, 1881, conveyed his property to trustees for his wife and some preferred creditors. The executions on the said judgments recovered at the March term, 1882, against A. M. Davies & Co. having been returned "No property, " the judgment creditors,.J. D. Noble and Seott & Noble, proceeded against the individual, as well as partnership, assets of Maben and of Davies, and filed their original bill in the circuit court of the city of Lynchburg, making J. R. Maben, Jessie M. Maben, (late Bremner,) Pitt Woodruff, trustee, A. M. Davies and his wife, M. A. Davies, and others, the trustees in the Davies deeds, parties defendant, and requiring answers on oath, and charging, among other things, that this deed of settlement by J. R. Maben of November 30, 1881, was made with intent to delay, hinder, and defraud complainants and others, creditors of J. R. Maben, and that the said Jessie M. Maben (late Bremner) had connived at the fraud; and praying that the said deed of marriage settlement should be annulled and set aside, and the property therein conveyed should be subjected to the payment of their said judgments. In the progress of the suit J. P. Krise and Winfree & Lloyd and other creditors of A. M. Davies & Co. became parties by petition and cross-bill. Most voluminous testimony by depositions and documents was taken, much of which is wholly irrelevant to the actual issue involved. We have, for the purpose in hand, to consider only so much of it as pertains to...