Ryan v. Young

Decision Date31 October 1883
Citation79 Mo. 30
PartiesRYAN, Appellant, v. YOUNG.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Jackson Special Law and Equity Court.--HON. R. E. COWAN, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Comingo & Slover for appellant.

Buchanan & Black and Jas. F. Mister for respondents.

NORTON, J.

Plaintiff, who was a judgment creditor of defendant, Young, commenced this suit in the special law and equity court of Jackson county, to set aside a deed executed on the 25th day of January, 1871, by said Young, conveying to defendant, Willock, his interest in a certain tract of land in Jackson county. It is alleged in the petition that this deed was made in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into between defendants Young and Willock to defraud the plaintiff and other creditors of said Young, and that said Willock received said deed with full knowledge of said Young's fraudulent purpose. The answer put in issue the averments of the petition, and on the trial judgment was rendered for the defendants, from which plaintiff has appealed on the ground that the judgment is against the law and evidence.

It appears from the record that defendant Young, in August, 1868, purchased of one Hughes, who was engaged in the grocery business, his stock of goods, and commenced business in Independence; that he gave Hughes his note for $1,000, the purchase price of said goods, and to secure its payment executed a deed of trust conveying his onethird interest in 120 acres of land in Jackson county. It also appears that on the 24th day of May, 1870, Young executed a second deed of trust conveying his interest in said land to secure a note executed by him to one Roberts for $850; that in this deed Josephine Young, the sister of defendant Young, joined, conveying her interest also for the like purpose; that said Josephine subsequently, in December, 1870, intermarried with the defendant Willock; that the sums of money secured by these deeds were put in defendant Young's business. It further appears that Young, who had been raised on a farm, without experience in mercantile pursuits, was unsuccessful in the enterprise in which he had embarked, and contracted more liabilities than he was able to pay; that on the 23rd day of January, 1871, he sold and conveyed his interest in said land to defendant Willock for the consideration of $1,000, his interest being one-third, subject to the life estate of his mother in the premises and incumbrances above mentioned.

Willock in his evidence states that at the time of the purchase he paid Young $125 and assumed the payment of the note of Young to Roberts then about $875; that he paid the interest on the Roberts note the 2nd day of March, 1871, and got an extension of time, paid interest after that and in March, 1872, paid the balance on said note, it having been credited in February, 1871, with $150 worth of corn raised on the farm in 1870, which the parties interested agreed he might apply in that way; that he borrowed money from Miss Wallace with which to make the payment. He also testifies that he paid the balance on Hughes note, $700 with interest, through Mr. Van Note. This evidence as to payments was corroborated by Young, Roberts. Hughes and Wallace. It thus appears that the consideration for the land was fully paid by defendant, and that it went to the payment of Young's debts and $125 paid to Young, which he swears he paid on his debts, and that this statement is corroborated by Hughes, who states that about the time of the sale to Willock, Young paid him about $200 on his note; $875 was paid to Roberts, and between $700 and $800 paid to Hughes.

The sums thus paid, about $1,800, were a fair price for the land, one witness testifying that it was hard to tell what it was worth incumbered with the life estate of Young's mother; that freed from that the whole tract would be worth...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Raalte v. Harrington
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1890
    ... ... 609; Schroeder v. Walsh, 120 Ill. 403; Shelley ... v. Booth, 73 Mo. 74; Sexton v. Anderson, 95 Mo ... 379; Levey v. Adler, 97 Mo. 413; Ryan v ... Young, 79 Mo. 30; Holmes v. Braidwood, 82 Mo ... 610. (4) There is no evidence to support the verdict ... Hipsley v. Railroad, 88 Mo ... ...
  • Finke v. Boyer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1932
    ...it is to be referred to the better motive. [Garesche v. MacDonald, 103 Mo. 1, 15 S.W. 379, citing Funkhouser v. Lay, 78 Mo. 458; Ryan v. Young, 79 Mo. 30; Henderson v. Henderson, 55 Mo. 535; Ames Gilmore, 59 Mo. 537.] Yet it is not necessary that fraud be shown by direct evidence. It may be......
  • Finke v. Boyer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1932
    ...it is to be referred to the better motive. [Garesche v. MacDonald, 103 Mo. 1, 15 S.W. 379, citing Funkhouser v. Lay, 78 Mo. 458; Ryan v. Young, 79 Mo. 30; Henderson v. Henderson, 55 Mo. 535; Ames v. Gilmore, 59 Mo. 537.] [3] Yet it is not necessary that fraud be shown by direct evidence. It......
  • Bank v. Richmond
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1919
    ...to Morris cannot be declared fraudulent unless Morris knew of Richmond's intent to defraud the bank and participated in it. Ryan v. Young, 79 Mo. 30; Bank Worthington, 145 Mo. 91; Dougherty v. Cooper, 77 Mo. 528. WHITE, C. Railey and Mozley, CC., concur. OPINION WHITE, C. In the Circuit Cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT