Schroeder v. Gohde
| Decision Date | 28 November 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,300 - (89) [2] |
| Citation | 144 N.W. 152,123 Minn. 459 |
| Parties | HENRY SCHROEDER v. H. C. GOHDE and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Faribault county against Henry C Gohde and Louise Gohde to determine that the taking of a certain promissory note secured by mortgage by defendant Louise as payee and mortgagee was fraudulent and void as to plaintiff; that she account for the note and mortgage and the proceeds arising from the collection thereof, and that defendants be restrained from disposing or interfering with the same or the proceeds thereof, except under the direction of the court. The answer, among other matters, alleged that in the year 1896 defendants moved upon the land, which then became their homestead and continued to be at all times thereafter such homestead up to the date of the conveyance thereof; that each of them continued to reside upon the land and occupy it as their homestead; that defendant Louise furnished all the moneys for the erection of all buildings and the making of all improvements on the land and in fact operated and managed it at all times since its purchase by her, claiming to be the owner thereof. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Quinn, J., who when plaintiff rested, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the action, and who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of defendants. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Sale of homestead for benefit of wife -- creditors of husband.
Where a husband, in order to induce his wife to join in the sale of the family homestead, agrees that she shall receive the proceeds of the sale, the agreement is valid, and the transaction is not fraudulent as to creditors of the husband. They have no claim upon the homestead property, and this agreement as to the disposal of the land and its proceeds is of no concern to them.
Conant & Conant, for appellant.
D. L. Morse and Putnam & Carlson, for respondents.
About 1890 defendant Louise Gohde entered into a written contract to purchase 80 acres of land for $1,520. She paid down $200 of her own money. Thereafter, at different times, she made payments amounting to $320 and interest. In 1894 the vendor gave a warranty deed conveying the land to her husband, the defendant Henry C. Gohde, and took back a purchase money mortgage for $1,000. Defendant Louise Gohde believed the deed was made to her, and did not learn otherwise until long afterwards. In 1896 defendants built a house and made other improvements upon the land, and thereafter occupied it as the family homestead down to and including the first day of March, 1911. During the whole period, from the time the land was purchased until the family left it, defendant Louise worked the farm, with the assistance of the sons of defendants, and sometimes with hired help. The money used to make payments on the purchase price and to pay for improvements made was the product of her husbandry. Defendant Henry prior to 1900 had other occupation, and after 1900 had little capacity for labor by reason of the loss of a hand.
In September, 1910, defendants entered into a contract to sell the land to one Morell for $7,600. Defendant Louise refused to sign the contract unless defendant Henry would agree that all of the proceeds of the sale should be paid to her. Defendant Henry so agreed, and, in accordance with such agreement, she signed the contract. A first payment of $1,000 was then made, and that amount she received. In March, 1911, a second payment of $600 was made to her, and a deed was executed to Morell. A purchase money mortgage was to be given for the balance. Defendant Louise refused to sign the deed unless the mortgage was made to her. Thereupon Morell executed to her the purchase money mortgage for $6,000. This mortgage was dated March 1, but was acknowledged March 7, 1911.
During 1910 and 1911, and prior thereto, plaintiff was a creditor of defendant Henry. He held a note for money loaned to one Bieri in which defendant Henry had joined as surety. On October 3, 1911, the note being still unpaid, plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant Henry for the amount due, with interest. An execution was issued and returned wholly unsatisfied. This action was then brought for the purpose of subjecting the proceeds of the sale of the land to the payment of the judgment. The trial court gave judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
This judgment should be sustained.
Defendants contend that the land at all times, in equity and good conscience, belonged to defendant Louise, by reason of the manner in which it was purchased, operated and paid for. There is some force to this contention, but we do not deem it necessary to rest our...
To continue reading
Request your trial