Porter v. Goble

• Decision Date: 25 May 1893
• Parties: PORTER v. GOBLE ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

88 Iowa 565

55 N.W. 530

PORTER

v.GOBLE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 25, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Appanoose county; W. I. Babb, Judge.

Action to quiet title to certain lands. Trial to court. Decree against plaintiff, and judgment against her for costs. She appeals.O. H. Law and Geo. D. Porter, for appellant.

T. M. Fee, for appellees.

KINNE, J.

1. Plaintiff brought her action to quiet title to the N. 1/2 of the S. E. 1/4 of section 14, township 68, range 18, and the S. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4 of section 22, township 67, range 18. The defendants deny plaintiff's ownership of the land. They aver that they each have judgments against her husband, A. J. Porter, and others, which are liens upon said land; that said judgments were recovered for goods sold to the firm of Williamson & Porter, while Porter was a member of said firm, and while the title to said land was in A. J. Porter, and said credit was extended to said firm under the belief that A. J. Porter was in fact the owner of the land in controversy; that the firm of Williamson & Porter have disposed of all their property with the intent to defraud their creditors, and to hinder and delay them in the collection of their claims; that said firm is insolvent; that on July 28, 1890, said A. J. Porter, the husband of plaintiff, conveyed said land to her, without consideration, and for the purpose of defrauding, hindering, and delaying said creditors in the collection of their claims; that plaintiff participated in said fraud, and fraudulent intent. A decree is asked setting aside the deed from A. J. Porter to plaintiff, and declaring defendants' judgments and liens upon the land. It appears also that writs of attachment had been sued out by all of the defendants except H. L. Spencer & Co., and levied upon the land in controversy. Plaintiff denied all of the allegations of the answer. The court dismissed plaintiff's petition, and decreed the judgments to be liens on the land in the order in which the attachments were levied, and ordered the land sold to satisfy said liens. The deed was also set aside, so far as defendants' liens were concerned.

2. From the agreed statement of facts and the testimony introduced it appears that plaintiff, in 1875, married A. J. Porter. At that time he had no property. His wife received from her father's estate about $1,300. This money she let her husband have, but did not at any time take any note or other writing therefor; nor did he, at the time he received it, or afterwards, promise to return the money, or repay it to her, or to secure her in any way therefor. He was permitted to and did use it as he saw fit. There is nothing to show that the parties expected it would ever be repaid. It was in no sense treated as a loan to the husband. In 1876 the husband purchased 80 acres of land, and paid this $1,300 thereon. In February, 1882, he sold the land to one Wells, and during the same month purchased from one Shaffer the land now in controversy. The title to the land in both cases was taken in the name of the husband. Under the Shaffer purchase the husband continued to hold the title to the land until July 28, 1890, when he deeded it to his wife. The husband and wife resided on the land until 1889, when they rented it, and moved to Centerville, where the husband purchased an interest in a grocery, and became the partner of one Matt Williamson. This partnership existed until July 28, 1890, under the firm name of Williamson & Porter. On that day the firm disposed of all its property by sale to one Crawford, except a delivery wagon and horse, which they mortgaged for its full value to one McFarland. Prior to thus disposing of their property, the firm had become insolvent, and were owing over $3,000, including the indebtedness to the defendants herein. The creditors of the firm had, prior to July 28, 1890, been pressing the firm for settlement of its obligations. Defendants severally obtained judgments against the firm and the individual members for the amounts due them, and all of them, except H. L. Spencer & Co. sued out attachments, and levied them on the land involved in this...