Samuel Pope Administrators v. Dodson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1871
• Citation: 58 Ill. 360,1871 WL 7932
• Parties: SAMUEL POPE et al. Administrators, etc.v.ELISHA DODSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

58 Ill. 360

1871 WL 7932 (Ill.)

SAMUEL POPE et al. Administrators, etc.

v.ELISHA DODSON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1871.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jersey county; the Hon. CHARLES D. HODGES, Judge, presiding.

This was a proceeding originally commenced in the probate court of Jersey county. In February, 1870, Ezekiel Dodson died intestate, and Samuel Pope and Catharine Dodson were appointed by the county court to administer upon his estate. Elisha Dodson, a son of the deceased, presented to the probate court, for allowance against the estate of his father, a promissory note, purporting to have been executed by the deceased in favor of the claimant. The court disallowed the claim, but upon appeal to the circuit court, judgment was rendered in favor of the claimant against the estate, to reverse which the administrators bring the record to this court.

Messrs. ROBINSON, KNAPP & SHUTT, for the appellants.

Messrs. WARREN, POGUE & AMES, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

The defense sought to be interposed to the note in controversy, is two-fold: 1st, that the note was never executed by the intestate, Ezekiel Dodson; and 2nd, if genuine, it was given without any real consideration passing between the parties, and for a fraudulent purpose. The evidence leaves no serious doubt on the mind, that the note was executed by the intestate. In addition to the testimony of one witness, who states he saw it executed, there is evidence that can not be disregarded, of repeated allusions to it by the intestate in his lifetime. We may assume that fact in the case is sufficiently established.

The only difficulty arising in the case, is to ascertain correctly for what consideration, if any, and for what purpose the note was given. There is much apparently contradictory testimony in the record, but about the main facts there does not seem to be much dispute.

In 1859, the appellee conveyed to the intestate, Ezekiel Dodson, the farm that had been purchased from Barrow, and was afterwards sold to Streetmaker, and the intestate executed and delivered to the appellee the note now in controversy.

It is insisted on the part of the appellee, that he made a bona fide sale of the farm to his father for the sum of $2,000, for which the note was given. On the other hand, it is insisted by the administrators that the sale was not in good faith; that the appellee conveyed the property to his father for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors, and with the view of giving the transaction a colorable appearance of fairness, the note was executed without any intention that it should ever be paid. The intestate lived eleven years after the date of the conveyance, during which period the appellee held the note. It does not appear the appellee ever made any attempt to collect the money during the lifetime of his father, although his father was amply responsible, and during a part of the time, at least, he was himself very much pressed for money.

It appears that, for some purpose, whether it was for an honest or a fraudulent one, the farm was conveyed to the intestate, and the note executed and delivered. The facts in the case seem to us to be inconsistent with the theory of the appellee that it was an actual sale. It appears that after the conveyance was made, the appellee still treated the farm as his own, and in January, 1861, he sold it to Streetmaker for the sum of $3,200, without disclosing to him that his father had any interest in it until after the trade was completed, when he told Streetmaker that his father would make the deed. Accordingly, the intestate did execute the deed, and the notes given for the purchase money were immediately assigned and delivered to the appellee, and were by him collected to his own use. It does not appear the intestate ever claimed any interest in the Streetmaker notes, or the proceeds thereof.

If we regard the conveyance of the farm to the intestate, as having been made for the convenience of the appellee, and not as an actual sale, we think much of the testimony that seems to be flatly contradictory, may, upon that theory, be reconciled consistently with the truth of the case, and without imputing any bad motives to any of the witnesses. It is in evidence that the intestate, in his lifetime, frequently alluded to this note, and said, when it was convenient, or when he could make the “ends meet,” he would pay it. The reason invariably assigned for his intention to pay the note, was not that he really owed his son that amount of money, but that his son had lived with him and worked for him longer than any of his other children, after he became of age....