Rankin v. West

• Decision Date: 09 July 1872
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Austin L. Rankin v. Rose West

25 Mich. 195

Austin L. Rankin v. Rose West

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 9, 1872

Heard July 6, 1872

Error to Saginaw Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Sutherland & Wheeler, for plaintiff in error.

John B Dillingham, for defendant in error.

Cooley J. Campbell and Graves, JJ., concurred. Christiancy, Ch. J. did not sit in this case.

OPINION

Cooley, J.

The defendant in error brought replevin for the stock in trade in a meat market, of which she claimed to be proprietor, but which Rankin, as sheriff, had taken on execution as the property of her husband, Richard J. West.

Richard J. West, it appears, had previously carried on the same business in his own name; but being embarrassed, and apparently unable to continue it, one Hubert, from whom he had been in the practice of purchasing stock on credit, refused to trust him longer, but made a bargain with Mrs. West, by which it was agreed he should sell to her, and she should pay him for the property. Hubert said he knew there were debts against her husband, and he did not wish to make such sales as would make the property sold, subject to executions on such debts. This arrangement was carried out; a shop being leased in the name of Mrs. West, and the business thereafter carried on in her name, her husband managing it for her.

The defense in the replevin suit was, that this arrangement was fraudulent as to the creditors of Richard J. West, and that the business thus conducted was still his business, carried on in the wife's name merely as a cover.

The instructions given by the circuit judge to the jury were as follows:

"This is an action of replevin brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for certain meat found in a butcher shop on the first day of February, 1870.

"The cause of the replevin was this: James I. Robinson had, on the 21st day of August, 1869, recovered judgment against Richard J. West, for the sum of three hundred dollars and costs. On the 28th of January, 1870, the winter following, he sued out an execution on that judgment, and levied upon the property in question.

"The validity of the judgment and the execution are all conceded by counsel, and the only question reserved for you is as to the title of the property levied upon.

"If the property, at the time of suing out the replevin, was the property of the plaintiff, she should receive a verdict at your hands. If it was the property of Richard J. West, then it was properly levied upon by said defendant, who was deputy sheriff here, and the verdict should be for the defendant, for the value of the property, and interest from the date of the replevin, on February 1st, 1870, and for six cents damages for the detention of the property by the plaintiff.

"The only question, as I have said, left for you, is as to the question of the title of the property.

"At common law, before our statute was passed, all personal property of the wife that she owned at the time of her marriage, vested in the husband, and she could not own personal property herself at law. By the statute passed in 1855, it was provided as follows: 'That the real and personal estate of every female acquired before marriage, and all property, real and personal, to which she may become entitled by gift, grant, inheritance, devise, or in other manner, shall be and remain the estate and property of such female, and shall not be liable for the debts, obligations and engagements of her husband, and may be contracted, sold, transferred, mortgaged, conveyed, devised or bequeathed by her, in the same manner and with the like effect as if she were unmarried'

"If the plaintiff acquired this property, if it became her property by the transaction between herself and Hubert, then you have no further inquiry; you should find for the plaintiff.

"Mr. Hubert testified that Richard J. West being indebted to him some hundreds of dollars, he refused to furnish him any more goods; that he would not give him any credit, and that he made a bargain with the plaintiff by which it was expressly agreed that he should sell to her, and that she should pay him for the property. He said he knew there were certain debts against Richard J. West, and that he did not wish to make such sales as would make his property subject to executions against Richard J. West. Now, such a bargain as that, Mr. Hubert had a right to make. Any man has a right to sell his own property, so long as he does not defraud his creditors. It is not alleged that Mr. Hubert was defrauding any of his creditors.

"It is not claimed but that the property belonged to Mr Hubert. He had a right then, I say, to sell his property to whomsoever he pleased. He had a right to sell it in such a way as to secure himself that no creditors of Mr. West should levy upon the property. The fact that Mr. West was indebted did not prevent Mr. Hubert from selling his property to whomsoever he pleased.

And I charge you, that if you find that Mr. Hubert, for the purpose of selling his property on credit in such a manner and to such a person as he deemed would render him secure in...