Scanlan v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 16 December 1892
• Parties: SCANLAN v MURPHY ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

51 Minn. 536

53 N.W. 799

SCANLANvMURPHY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 16, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In an action to vacate a conveyance, fraudulent as to creditors, the plaintiff need not show that he has followed his legal remedy further than to recover and docket his judgment.

2. In the complaint in such an action the debt for which the judgment was rendered need not be stated with the definiteness required in a complaint to recover the debt.

3. In pleading a judgment it is enough to allege that it was rendered in an action pending, without pleading the jurisdictional facts, or using the words in Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 108.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; BRILL, Judge.

Action by John M. Scanlan against Patrick E. Murphy and others to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Warner, Richardson & Lawrence, for appellants.

Jayne & Morrison, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Action to have a conveyance of real estate declared fraudulent and void as to plaintiff's judgment, recovered against the grantor. On demurrer to the complaint the defendants claim that the action will not lie, because the plaintiff has, by proceedings supplementary to execution, an adequate remedy at law, and that those proceedings were intended to be a substitute for such an action. In Banning v. Armstrong, 7 Minn. 40, (Gil. 24,) the nature of the action was fully considered, and it was held that, as it is not in the nature of a creditors' bill to discover assets, but one to remove an obstruction in the way of the creditors' legal remedy by execution, it is only necessary that the plaintiff shall have a lien by judgment on the real estate subsequent to the fraudulent conveyance; and this was followed in Rounds v. Green, 29 Minn. 139,12 N. W. Rep. 454, and Wadsworth v. Schisselbauer, 32 Minn. 84,19 N. W Rep. 390. It is not necessary, therefore, for the creditor to follow his legal remedy further than to recover and docket his judgment. The statement in the complaint of the debt upon which the judgment was recovered might not be sufficiently definite for a complaint in an action to recover the debt, but it is sufficient in the complaint in this action, the only purpose of the allegation being to show that the judgment was recovered on a debt accruing prior to the fraudulent conveyance. In pleading a judgment, where the facts conferring jurisdiction are not pleaded, the exact form of...