Savoie v. Pion

• Decision Date: 29 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 1071.,1071.
• Citation: 161 A. 219
• Parties: SAVOIE v. PION et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

161 A. 219

SAVOIE

v. PION et al.

No. 1071.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 29, 1932.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Judge.

Suit by Fanalon Savoie against Joseph A. Pion and another. From a decree dismissing the bill, the complainant appeals.

Reversed.

Archambault & Archambault, of Providence, for appellant.

Baker & Spicer and Walter I. Sundlun, all of Providence, for appellees.

MURDOCK, J.

This is a bill in equity brought to set aside a deed to certain real estate given, it is alleged for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the complainant, a judgment creditor. The cause was tried in the superior court, and a decision was rendered in favor of respondents. From the decree dismissing the bill, the complainant has appealed to this court.

One of the grounds on which respondents ask that the appeal be dismissed is that the complainant has failed to prove actual fraud. As generally interpreted, the statute (Gen. Laws 1923, c. 297, § 1) does not require proof of fraud in fact. See the recently decided case of Tanner v. Whitney (R. I.) 161 A. 122, where this question has been fully considered.

Early in January, 1930, the complainant consulted his attorney with reference to a claim arising in tort against respondent Joseph A. Pion. In response to a communication from complainant's attorney, said Pion called several times at the former's office; his last call was on February 5, 1930. The following day he conveyed to his wife his undivided half interest which he held with her in joint tenancy in a two-tenement house in the city of Central Falls. On the next day complainant brought suit and in June obtained judgment.

It is admitted that the conveyance in question was made without any present consideration. The respondent Joseph Pion, so far as appears from the record, had at that time no other property except an automobile which was sold at execution sale for an amount insufficient to pay the expenses of the sale.

The respondents contend that there was a consideration for such conveyance. It appears in evidence that respondent Joseph Pion borrowed, on December 1, 1928, 82,000 from the Credit Union Bank of Central Falls on a six months' promissory note; that the respondent Clara Pion and two other relatives indorsed said note. The note appears to have been renewed from time to time without any payment on account until December 6, 1930, when $100 was paid by the respondent Clara Pion, who at the same time paid a year's interest in advance on the balance. For a period of at least eighteen months Clara Pion paid the interest, when...