Rumbolds v. Parr

• Decision Date: 28 February 1873
• Citation: 51 Mo. 592
• Parties: WM. RUMBOLDS, Respondent, v. W. H. PARR, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

51 Mo. 592

WM. RUMBOLDS, Respondent,

v.W. H. PARR, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1873.

Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.

C. W. Bell & A. W. Mullins, for Appellant.

Geo. W. Easley and Collier & Mansur, for Respondent.

VORIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition in this case shows that the respondent in this court recovered a judgment in the Linn Circuit Court on the 9th day of June, 1870, against one William Parr and George W. Stephens for the sum of $362 29-100 debt and damages; that Stephens was the surety of Parr; that on the 7th day of Sept. 1870, said Wm. Parr died; that letters of administration were granted on the estate of Parr to said George W. Stephens and Enoch Wesley; that on the 31st day of December 1870, the said judgment was allowed by the Probate Court of Linn county as a claim against said estate, and classified in the fourth class as the statute provides; that on the 30th day of November, 1869, said William Parr being largely indebted and in embarrassed circumstances, purchased from one Levi Welsh, the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section nine, in Township fifty-eight, of Range twenty-one, which was of the value of one thousand dollars, and for which said sum was paid by said Parr; that for the purpose of defrauding, hindering and delaying his creditors, (and particularly plaintiff) he caused said land to be conveyed to the defendant, Wesley H. Parr, who is his son, and who received the title with notice of all the facts and circumstances stated; that he now holds the title thereto, in trust for the creditors of the said William Parr, who died insolvent.

The respondent then prayed that said conveyance to the defendant be set aside; that the tract of land described be decreed to be sold; that the proceeds arising therefrom be applied to the payment of his said judgment, and for other proper relief.

The defendant filed an answer to the petition, in which he denies the allegations of the petition, and states that he paid one thousand dollars for said land, its full value, in good faith, and that the land is his property, & c. The plaintiff in a replication denies that defendant paid for the land in good faith, or that he is the owner thereof.

A trial was had before the court. The court after hearing the evidence found all and each of the facts charged in the petition, to be true, and then rendered a judgment and decree. “That said conveyance of the land herein described to the defendant be set aside and for naught held and esteemed, and that the same be sold and the proceeds arising from the sale thereof be applied to the payment of plaintiff's debt; and that he have and recover of said defendant his costs in and about this suit laid out and expended, and that he have therefor execution.”

The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and set out as grounds for said motion: 1st. That the finding of the court is against the evidence in the cause. 2nd. That the finding of the court was against the weight of the evidence, 3rd. That there is no evidence to show that plaintiff's claim remained unpaid at the time of the bringing of the suit. 4th. That the judgment is against the law, and that improper evidence was admitted, &c.

This motion was overruled and the defendant excepted.

The defendant then filed a motion in arrest of the judgment, because the record of the judgment is erroneous. That the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the petition does not show that the plaintiff's claim is unpaid. This motion also being overruled the defendant again excepted and appealed to this court.

It appears from the Bill of Exceptions in this case, that the plaintiff offered and read in evidence the judgment named in the petition, a list of the debts proved up and allowed in the Probate Court, having charge of said estate, amounting in all to from five to seven thousand dollars, and it was also shown by plaintiff's evidence that the sale bill by the administrator showed that the personal property belonging to the estate of William Parr, sold for $944.77-100; that the land which had been sold by the administrator of the estate, had sold for $3684.00 100. The whole assets in the hands of the administrator being $4,628.77-100. George W. Stephens, one of the administrators, testified that he knew the tract of land in controversy, which was conveyed to defendant in 1869. That William Parr paid for it; that he got the money from David R. Thompson, in part payment for a tract of land sold by William Parr, deceased, to said Thompson.

The land sold to Thompson was 120 acres in the S. E. qr. of Sec. 4, Town. 58, R. 21, and 20 acres adjoining Sec. 9. The legal title to the land at the time, being in witness. “Wm. Parr,” he testified, “wanted $1000 of the proceeds of the sale, to buy the land in controversy, for his son; he told me that he got $1000 in money of Thompson, that he paid Welsh $800 and a horse at $200 for the land.” Thompson gave witness his note for the balance of the land purchased, being $1650, the 140 acres being sold to Thompson for $2650. Witness had before sold the land to William Parr for $1600. The defendant was living on the N. W. qr. of the S. E. qr. of Sec. 4, T. 58, R. 21, which was part of the 140 acres sold to Thompson; it was wild land when witness sold it to Parr. Dont know when defendant took possession of the land. There was a small frame house and some improvements on it when Parr sold it to Thompson. Witness sold Parr between 500 and 600 acres in all. He gave witness his notes for the land; the aggregate amount of the purchase was between $8000 and $9000; one thousand dollars was paid down. $1600 was paid when he made the sale to Thompson in 1869. He said he came from indiana, he had several thousand dollars with witness before he purchased the large farm; none of his notes were due to witness until December 1866; deceased was very much embarrassed in 1869, when the land in controversy was conveyed to the defendant. The notes read in evidence as well as the accounts for 1867, were all due at that time. Mr. Thompson, who purchased the 140 acres of land of William Parr, testified that he was acquainted with the 140 acre farm, that he was to pay $2650 for it, he paid $1000 down; that he got the title from Stephens. William Parr bought a tract of land about that time, understood he paid $800 and a horse at $200 for the land. Witness stated that he referred to the 40 acre tract; that defendant lives on the Welsh tract. It was worth $1000. Witness bought the land from William Parr in November 1869, bought 150 acres. The defendant was living on 80 acres the west side of the tract witness bought. There was a house on the 80 acres, and about 24 or 25 acres fenced. The improvements were considered by witness to be worth $400; did not know who put the improvements there. When witness purchased of William Parr, he called it his son's land, he said it belonged to his son. Witness knew that there was an agreement between him and his son, the defendant, that he was to sell the 80 acres, and give his son the 40 acres in controversy. Witness considered the 80 acres worth $1650, with the improvements; the improvements were worth $400. Witness paid the $1650 to George M. Stephens, and $1000 to William Parr, gave a note to Stephens for the $1650.

The defendant introduced at least three witnesses beside himself who all swore to substantially the same thing. Two of these witnesses were brothers-in-law of defendant, and one a brother-in-law of ...