Le Saulnier v. Krueger

• Decision Date: 21 March 1893
• Citation: 54 N.W. 774,85 Wis. 214
• Parties: LE SAULNIER v. KRUEGER ET UX.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

85 Wis. 214

54 N.W. 774

LE SAULNIER

v.KRUEGER ET UX.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 21, 1893.

Appeal from circuit court, Shawano county; John Goodland, Judge.

Action by J. B. Le Saulnier against Carl Krueger and Hannah Krueger, his wife, to set aside a conveyance of land as in fraud of creditors. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by WINSLOW, J.:

Action in the nature of a creditors' bill to set aside a conveyance of 80 acres of land from the defendant Carl to Hannah, his wife, as in fraud of creditors. Upon the trial it appeared that plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant Carl June 5, 1889, for $140.83, upon a promissory note given by Carl to one Hammel, December 20, 1887, and indorsed to plaintiff before maturity; that execution was issued upon said judgment July 12, 1889, and returned October 5, 1889, nulla bona; that Carl owned a homestead of 40 acres at the time the note was given, also 80 acres of land in addition and adjacent to the homestead; that on the 14th of March, 1888, Carl deeded to Hannah the last-named 80 acres for the expressed consideration of $400, and a release of her dower and homestead rights, either present or contingent, in the homestead 40 acres. It appeared by the testimony of Hannah, introduced by the plaintiff, that she was married to Carl in 1871; that in that year she received from her father $100, and in the following year $300, all of which she gave to her husband, and it was spent within a short time, improving the husband's land. It does not appear that any agreement, express or implied, was ever made that it should be repaid. The $400 named in the deed referred to this money. The husband and wife lived upon the farm, and cultivated the whole 120 acres after the conveyance in the same manner as before. At the close of plaintiff's case, the defendants moved that the complaint be dismissed, for failure to prove the allegations of the complaint, and because the plaintiff had failed to prove that Hannah took the conveyance without consideration, and with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors; and the court thereupon found, as facts “that the allegations of the complaint are not proved; as a conclusion of law, that defendants are entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs.” From judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.E. J. Goodrick, for appellant.

M. J. Wallrich,...