Rollet v. Heiman
| Decision Date | 02 November 1889 |
| Docket Number | 13,962 |
| Citation | 22 N.E. 666,120 Ind. 511 |
| Parties | Rollet et al. v. Heiman |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
J. E Williamson, for appellants.
D. B Kumler, V. Bisch and G. F. Denby, for appellee.
Heiman, the appellee, is the judgment creditor of Joseph Rollet, one of the appellants. The facts stated in the second paragraph of his complaint are, in substance, these: The plaintiff recovered judgment against Rollet for $ 347, the judgment is unsatisfied, and the debtor has no other property subject to execution. At the time of the execution of the promissory note upon which the judgment is founded, Rollet owned real estate of the value of five thousand five hundred dollars, and he also owned personal property of the value of eight hundred dollars. He was the owner of this property on the 27th day of October, 1883, the note was executed on the 28th day of April, 1883, and the judgment on it was recovered on the 4th day of February, 1884. Rollet, by reason of the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, was incapacitated from engaging in ordinary business pursuits. Nurrenbarn is the brother-in-law of Rollet, and on the 27th day of October, 1883, induced the latter to convey to him all of his property. The deed was executed by Rollet and wife conveying to Nurrenbarn the real estate then owned by Rollet. The consideration for the conveyance was the promised payment of thirty-nine hundred dollars, and the assumption by the grantee of two mortgages on the property. The property was worth at least three thousand dollars more than the price fixed. The consideration expressed in the deed was not paid by the grantee. The alleged payment of thirty-nine hundred dollars was, in fact, not made, but was pretended to be made by the release of debts due from Rollet to Nurrenbarn, which debts were mere fictions, having no existence. Immediately after the execution of the deed, Nurrenbarn made a gift of a great part of the personal property to Sophia Rollet, the wife of the judgment debtor. The conveyance was made with the intent to cheat, hinder, and delay the creditors of Rollet, and it was accepted by the grantee with full knowledge of all the facts.
The complaint is not well drawn. It contains much that is mere matter of evidence, and such matter obscures and weakens a pleading. We attach no importance whatever to the argument of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial