Seeders v. Allen
| Decision Date | 13 May 1881 |
| Parties | MARY L. SEEDERSv.SINGLETON B. ALLEN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Crawford county; the Hon. C. S. CONGER, Judge, presiding.
This was a bill in chancery, filed by Singleton B. Allen, assignee in bankruptcy of James B. Seeders, to have set aside a certain conveyance made to Mary L. Seeders, the wife of the bankrupt.
It appears, Charles S. Walker died intestate, possessed of the land in controversy, leaving two heirs, Orlando Walker, and Mary L. Walker, who intermarried with James B. Seeders. On a partition, made by Orlando Walker and James B. Seeders, the former conveyed the land involved in this litigation to James B. Seeders, and Mary L. Seeders, his wife, without her direction. This deed was made on May 26, 1873, and the property remained in the joint names of the husband and wife upon the records until August 31, 1876, when James B. Seeders, and Mary L., his wife, conveyed the same, without any consideration, to Orlando Walker, who, on the same day, conveyed the same lands, without any consideration, to said Mary L. Seeders. From May 26, 1873, to August 31, 1876, James B. and Mary L. Seeders occupied the land, during which time James B. Seeders exercised the care and supervision of the same that men usually exercise over their farms, and incurred many debts, as was alleged, on the faith of his ownership of said lands. On or about March 1, 1877, James B. Seeders, the husband, was adjudged a bankrupt, and the appellee appointed assignee of his estate, who, on September 13, 1877, filed this bill to have the lands subjected to the payment of James B. Seeders' debts.
On the hearing, the court ordered that the deeds of August 31, 1876, executed by James B. Seeders and wife to Orlando Walker, and that of said Walker to Mary L. Seeders, be set aside and for naught held as to the half interest of James B. Seeders. This appeal is prosecuted to reverse that decree.
Messrs. CALLAHAN & JONES, for the appellant:
James B. Seeders had a naked legal title, obtained without consideration and without the consent of the owner of the equitable estate. He was a mere trustee, and could at any time have been compelled by his wife to convey to her the legal title. If she had filed a bill to compel a conveyance to her, it would have been the duty of the court to grant the relief. Washburn on Real Property, vol. 2, pp. 177 to 182; Forbes v. Hall, 34 Ill. 159; McDowell v. Morgan, 28 Id. 533; Wilson v. Byers, 77 Id. 76.
Even if Mrs. Seeders had been silent in regard to the title in her husband, her rights would not have been prejudiced or the trust in her favor overthrown. Carpenter et al. v. Davis, 72 Ill. 14.
Seeders was acting for his wife in making the partition. It was his duty to have taken title to her. Taking title to himself was in violation of his duty to her, and she is entitled to the estate. Story's Eq. Jur. sec. 1210, and note 2.
The equitable claim of Mrs. Seeders was perfect against her husband. If the husband had been really in debt to her for a transaction disconnected with the land, he had a right to prefer her as a creditor, and convey the land to her as a payment. Thornton v. Davenport, 1 Scam. 298; Francis v. Rankin, 84 Ill. 170.
No matter how much he was in debt, he had a right to sell out his title, even with the avowed intention of defeating an honest claim, if no lien existed to forbid it. Waddoms v. Humphrey, 22 Ill. 663; Ewing v. Runkle, 20 Id. 460; Herkelrath v. Stookey, 63 Id. 486.
The assignee of James B. Seeders is a mere volunteer, and acquired no rights to the prejudice of the equitable interests of Mary L. Seeders. Talcott v. Dudley, 4 Scam. 427; Strong v. Clawson, 5 Gilm. 346.
There is no evidence showing any intent on the part of Mrs. Seeders to hinder, delay or defeat any creditor of James B. Seeders. Her action was an honest attempt to recover the legal title to her lands. It makes no difference how fraudulent his purposes or practices may have been, unless she participated in them this conveyance can not be set aside. Ewing v. Runkle, supra; Hessing v. McClosky, 37 Ill. 351; Herkelrath v. Stookey, supra; Miller et al. v. Kerly, 74 Ill. 242.
The declarations of James B. Seeders not made in the presence of his wife should be excluded from this case....
To continue reading
Request your trial