Robinson's Ex'rs v. Robards

• Decision Date: 31 January 1852
• Citation: 15 Mo. 459
• Parties: ROBINSON'S EX'RS v. ROBARDS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

15 Mo. 459

ROBINSON'S EX'RS

v.ROBARDS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1852.

ERROR TO BOONE CIRCUIT COURT.

GORDON, for Plaintiffs. 1. In order to constitute the conveyance of the horses, hogs, sheep, farming utensils and other personal property, by William Robards, to his son John Robards, a valid and legal one, so far as the creditors of William Robards are concerned, the possession of said property must have been delivered to and continued with him after the purchase of the same. 10th section, act concerning Fraudulent Conveyances. 2. The conveyance of personal property, horses, hogs, cattle, sheep, farming utensils, &c., by William Robards to his son John Robards, in consideration that he would support him and his family, is fraudulent and void as against bona fide creditors existing at the time of such conveyance. Cary v. Parker, 9 Cowen, 73; Chief-Justice Bronson's opinion in case of Van Wick v. Seward, 18 Wend. 375; Halbert v. Grant, 4 Monroe, 581; 10 B. Monroe, 81-7; Paige's Ch. R. 569; 9 B. Monroe, 511; 5 Cowen, 547; 3 Marsh. 247; 15 Vt. R. 252. 3. The conveyance by William Robards to his son John Robards of his personal property, horses, hogs, sheep, cattle, farming utensils, embracing most, if not all, of the property owned by him, for and in consideration that John would support him and his family, is a conveyance of goods and chattels, in trust, to his own use, within the meaning of the statute, and therefore fraudulent and void as against creditors existing at the time of such conveyance. Rev. Code, act concerning Fraudulent Conveyances, approved March 4th, 1845, § 1. 4. The gift of the slave, Nathan, by William Robards to his son John Robards, the possession remaining with William Robards, and there having been executed no deed or gift or bill of sale, such gift is presumed to be fraudulent against the complainants, who were at the time creditors of the said William Robards. Jackson v. Seward, 5 Cowen, 67; 3 Johns. Ch. R. 481. 5. The conveyance of Martin and Sharper, by William Robards to John Robards, at a time when William Robards was largely in debt, and about the time of the rendition of the judgment against him for a large amount in favor of the said complainants, with a knowledge of such indebtedness and of the rendition of such judgment on the part of John Robards, are circumstances from which the jury might have inferred fraud in the transaction. Van Wick v. Steward, 18 Wend 375; Chief-Justice Johnson's opinion in Pope v. Anderson, 1 Smedes & Marsh. 135. 6. The gift of the slave, Nathan, by William Robards to his son John Robards, was fraudulent and void as to the prior creditors of said William Robards. Trimble v. Ratcliff, 9 B. Monroe, 511, 514; 1 Halsted's R. 450. 7. The court erred in permitting the defendant to prove the value of William Robards' land in March, 1849: first, because the evidence given was not competent to rebut the proof given by the complainants to establish fraud in the several pretended transfers by William Robards to his son John Robards, in the years 1841, 1847, 1848: second, because the same was irrelevant and calculated to mislead the jury. 8. The court erred in permitting the defendants to prove what Walter Robinson, one of the complainants, said in relation to purchasing the lands and the manner of selling the same, for the reason that the evidence was irrelevant and calculated to mislead the jury.

HAYDEN, for Defendant. 1. The defendant, William Robards, at the time of transferring the farming utensils and other property mentioned under that contract, had a right so to do, for the consideration upon which he made the same to John M. Robarts, as also to sell the slaves, Sharper and Martin, to the said John at the time this sale was made, notwithstanding the existence of the debt due the plaintiffs. The contract was for a valuable consideration, and passed the title to the property prior to the existence of any lien thereon in favor of the complainants, and there is no evidence in the cause conducing to show that the conveyance was not bona fide, at least none to countervail the defendant's answer, which is well fortified by the proofs in the cause. 5 B. Monroe, 308; 5 J. J. Marsh. 554. 2. The said William Robards had a right to give the slave, Nathan, in the year 1841, to the said John Robards, and there is nothing in the record having the slightest tendency to show that the gift was made to defraud, or to injure the prior or subsequent creditors of the said William Robards, but on the contrary the evidence is very satisfactory that it was a bona fide transaction, and made at a time when the said William Robards was the owner of a large estate, and but little in debt compared with the amount of his estate, and the slave given was of little value. Story's Eq. §§ 353, 354, 355, 358, &c. 11 Mo. R. 402, Lane v. Kingsberry. 3. The instructions which the court refused to give to the jury, at the instance of the complainants, ought not to have been given by the court, because not warranted nor sanctioned by law, had there been some evidence, as supposed by plaintiff's counsel; and because the court gave to the jury all the law of the case. 2. The complainants have no right to complain in this court of the finding and the decree of the Circuit Court, because they wholly failed to do so in their motion in that court for a re-hearing of the cause. 5. Even though this court may be disposed to revise the finding and decree of the Circuit Court, notwithstanding a failure on the part of the complainants to complain of it in their motion for a new trial, yet this court will not reverse the decree. If from the evidence in the cause it is manifest that the decree is for the right party, notwithstanding this court may not be satisfied with the law prescriptions ministered by that court to its auxiliary, the jury, for their guide in deciding upon the facts of the case, to inform the conscience of the Chancellor, and not for the purpose of determining conclusively and independently of the court the question as to the facts. 7 Johns. Cases, 500, 506, 507; 6 Johns. Ch. R. 255, 256; 2 Vesey, jr. 528-9; 2 Vesey, 256; 1 Bro. P. C. 58.

SCOTT, J.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by the complainants against the defendants, charging substantially, that William Robards, one of the defendants, in December, 1847, was indebted to the complainants in a large sum of money, for which, afterwards, on the 25th August, 1848, judgment for the sum of $4,493 was rendered, on which a special fieri facias was issued, directing the sale of the lands in the execution mentioned, and if the said lands should be insufficient to satisfy said execution, then of the remaining lands and tenements, goods and chattels, belonging to the said Robards to satisfy the same: that in March, 1849, the sum of $1,289 65 was made on said execution: that at the time of the rendition of the said judgment, the said W. Robards was largely indebted, and fraudulently conveyed to his two sons, Wm. A. Robards and Jno. M. Robards, and other persons, all his slaves, ten or twelve in number, and all his other personal property, consisting of horses, cattle, hogs, farming utensils, &c. that said Wm. Robards, at the time of the rendition of the said judgment, fraudulently and without consideration, conveyed to Jno. M. Robards, three slaves, Sharper, Martin and Nathan, together with a large amount of other personal property, consisting of horses, cattle and other stock, household and kitchen furniture, farming utensils, &c.: that the said conveyance was made to the said John M. Robards at a time when he was fully aware of his father's indebtedness; was without consideration, and made with intent to defraud the complainants.

The answer of Jno. M. Robards, one of the defendants, admits the indebtedness of W. Robards to the complainants, for land sold and the judgment, execution and sale of said land for the payment of the purchase-money as stated in the bill: that he left Boone county in June, 1846, and was absent twelve months, and never understood how matters were between his father and the complainants: that in the fall of 1847, his father being in bad health and unable to attend to any business, agreed to give him what stock and farming utensils there were upon the farm, in consideration that he would support the said Robards, his father, and his wife: that he accepted the agreement and took the property accordingly, together with the use of the slaves and farm: that there was but a small stock and few farming utensils: that in 1841, his father gave him a small negro boy named Nathan, having previously given to each of his other children one or more slaves: that ever since the gift of said slave, he has had possession of him and exercised control over him: that in September, 1848, he purchased of his father two slaves, Sharper and Martin, for the sum of $650, which was paid down: that he purchased the said slaves fairly, although he knew at the time of the judgment of the complainants against his father, but he believed the land would be amply sufficient to satisfy it.

The answer of Wm. Robards admitted his indebtedness to the complainants, and the judgment, execution and sale of his land to pay the debt: that he believed the land amply sufficient to pay the debt due the complainants, as they had taken it for security for a much larger sum which had been reduced by payments: that one of the complainants used unfair means to prevent a fair sale of the land, and they conspired to cause a sacrifice of it: that at the time of the rendition of the judgment, he owned ten slaves, not valuable, being mostly children, and a few ordinary articles of household furniture: that in the fall of the year 1847, in consequence of ill health, he gave all his stock and farming utensils to his son John, in consideration he would take charge of the farm, and support him and his family. The stock thus conveyed was inconsiderable. His son accepted...