Rockford Boot & Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Mastin

• Decision Date: 07 September 1888
• Citation: 39 N.W. 219,75 Iowa 112
• Parties: ROCKFORD BOOT & SHOE MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al. v. MASTIN et al
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

39 N.W. 219

75 Iowa 112

ROCKFORD BOOT & SHOE MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al. v. MASTIN et al

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

September 7, 1888

Decided May, 1888

Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court.

THE plaintiffs are judgment creditors of the defendant Robert Mastin, and brought this action to subject to the payment of their several judgments certain real estate which he conveyed to his wife and two sons. Judgment was rendered for the defendants Leonora and George W. Mastin, and against the defendant Alanson Mastin. Both parties appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Rea & Hayes, W. J. Moir and H. L. Huff, for plaintiffs.

George Ward and Boies, Husted & Boies, for defendants.

OPINION

SEEVERS, C. J.

I.

Robert Mastin came to Iowa from New York, in 1871, and shortly afterwards he purchased, and there was conveyed to him, four hundred acres of land. On March 7, 1882, he conveyed two hundred acres thereof to his wife, Leonora Mastin; one hundred acres to each of his two sons, Robert W and Alanson T. At that time he was largely indebted to the plaintiffs and others, but whether he knew the extent of such indebtedness is a controverted question. In 1878 his son-in-law, Kelley, was engaged in the mercantile business and being indebted to said Robert, the latter purchased the stock of goods and continued the business in his own name but Kelley acted as his agent, and had full charge of the business. The defendants claim that Robert Mastin did not know that he was insolvent or largely indebted until after the conveyances of the real estate were made, and he so testifies; but we think he did know, or was bound to know, that Kelley as his agent was doing an unprofitable business, and was incurring debts which to a greater or less amount were being pressed for payment. The defendants claim that nearly fifty years ago Robert Mastin purchased some real estate in the state of New York, and, being indebted therefor, he obtained from his wife, forty years ago, some money which she obtained from her father, and that about ten years afterwards he obtained from her more money, which was due her as her share of her father's estate. They claim that said Robert promised at various times to pay his wife said money, with seven per cent. interest. The plaintiffs insist that there was no valid obligation or promise on the part of said Robert to repay such money, but that the same was a gift from his wife. It is true there was no written promise to pay; but that she did not regard it as a gift is clearly established, and we also think that he at least acknowledged the indebtedness, and somewhat indefinitely agreed to pay her whenever she wanted it. The money so obtained was invested in the land purchased in New York, which he sold for upwards of sixteen thousand dollars. Both Robert Mastin and his wife testify that the latter refused to sign the deed unless the money so received by her husband was paid or secured to her, and that the amount was then computed and agreed to be seventy-eight hundred dollars, for which amount a mortgage, given for a part of the purchase money on the real estate in New York, was assigned and transferred to her. That such a mortgage was so assigned and transferred must be regarded as established, for it appears of record in the proper office in New York. Such transfer, we think, vested in Mrs. Mastin the title to such mortgage and the money due thereon. There is no evidence in the record tending to show that Robert Mastin was indebted at that time. Certainly he was not to any of the plaintiffs. Conceding the assignment to be an executed gift, the plaintiffs cannot legally make any valid objection thereto. But we think there was a valid and sufficient consideration for the assignment of the mortgage. Afterwards, and prior to the conveyance of April 7, 1882, Mrs. Mastin permitted her husband to collect the amount due upon the mortgage, and the same was used by him to pay debts, and a portion was loaned to his son-in-law, Kelley. We find from the evidence that when Mrs. Mastin let her...