Schaible v. Ardner

• Decision Date: 08 December 1893
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHAIBLE v. ARDNER.

56 N.W. 1105

98 Mich. 70

SCHAIBLE v. ARDNER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 8, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Washtenaw county, in chancery; Edward D Kinne, Judge.

Bill by Jacob Schaible against Mary A. Ardner. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Reversed.

A. J. Sawyer, (J. F. Lawrence, of counsel,) for appellant.

T. A Bogle and W. L. Marquardt, (B. M. Thompson, of counsel,) for appellee.

McGRATH J.

This is a bill to remove a cloud (a levy) from the title of certain lands conveyed by John B. Schaible to David Schaible, and by David Schaible to complainant, and levied upon under an execution issued upon a judgment in favor of defendant against John B. in an action of trespass for the taking of certain personal property. Defendant sets up that the conveyances were fraudulent, and asks affirmative relief. John B. is the father of David and complainant. The suit at law was commenced January 11, 1889. On September 11, 1889 John B., by warranty deed, conveyed the lands in question, consisting of 170 acres, to David. The consideration expressed in the deed was $5,350. On the same day John B. transferred to another son a mortgage of $1,700. On May 10, 1890, defendant recovered judgment for $2,200. On January 29, 1891, an alias execution issued, and a levy was made on this land. On March 9, 1891, David conveyed to complainant. The consideration named in this deed was $1,800, and the deed was subject to "a mortgage of $5,000." Complainant gave his note to David for $1,700, payable "three years after date, with interest at five per cent." On the same day David made his will in favor of his three brothers, John, George, and Jacob. David died April 9, 1891, and the only asset of his estate was said note. Complainant paid the debts and expenses of the estate, which aggregated $202.90, and gave to each of his brothers, John and George, a note for $499.43, and the original note was surrendered to him. Complainant, called by defendant, testified that the understanding between them was that the notes to John and George were not to be paid until this farm was sold. Complainant offered the deeds from John B. to David, and from David to complainant, and the levy, and rested. Defendant's proofs clearly tend to show that David at the time of the conveyance to him lived with his father, and had no means or property. The bill sets up that John B. is insolvent and financially irresponsible; and complainant, when called by defendant, testified that after September 11, 1889, his father had no means or property. There was also proof that after the conveyance to David, and, indeed, after the deed to complainant, John B. exercised acts of control over the lands in question. Complainant and his father were present in court while the testimony was taken, and were not called to rebut any presumptions arising from this showing. It was sufficient for defendant to show an existing demand, upon which judgment was subsequently had; that the conveyances by John B. left him without property or means to pay that judgment; and that the conveyance to David was without valuable consideration. The first two propositions were conceded. The showing that David was without means to purchase, and that John B. was without the proceeds, clearly tended to establish the remaining proposition. It was unnecessary to offer further proof of fraudulent intent. A party is presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of his own acts, and, when prejudice to the rights of creditors results, the act is constructively fraudulent, notwithstanding good motive of intentions. Winchester v. Charter, 97 Mass. 140; Potter v. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62; Farrow v. Hayes, 51 Md. 498; Allan v. McTavish, 8 Ont. App. 440; Phelps v. Curtis, 80 Ill. 112; Bank v. Wheaton, 8 Me. 381; Roberts v. Radcliff, 35 Kan. 502, 11 P. 406; Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N.Y. 632; Morrill v. Kilner, 113 Ill. 318; Bohannon v. Combs, 79 Mo. 305. The conveyance being voluntary, it is immaterial whether or not the son participated in the design. Matson v. Melchor, 42 Mich. 477, 4 N.W. 200; Reeves v. Sherwood, 45 Ark. 520. The levy was notice to complainant. Cook v. French, 96 Mich. 525, 56 N.W. 101. In any event, the conveyance to his grantor being fraudulent, the onus was upon him to show that he purchased in good faith, and for a valuable consideration. Berry v. Whitney, 40 Mich. 65; Letson v. Reed, 45 Mich. 27, 7 N.W. 231; Davis v. Nolan, 49 Iowa, 683.

It is insisted that defendant was not at the time of the conveyance a creditor, within the meaning of the statute. How. Ann. St � 6203. The statute protects not alone "creditors," strictly speaking, but "other persons, of...