Sporrer v. Eifler

• Decision Date: 30 September 1870
• Citation: 48 Tenn. 633
• Parties: Peter Sporrer v. Nicholas Eifler et als.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

48 Tenn. 633

Peter Sporrer

v.Nicholas Eifler et als.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1870.

FROM KNOX.

In the Chancery Court at Knoxville, O. P. TEMPLE, Ch., presiding.

CROZIER & SONS, for Complainant.

T. R. Cornick, J. R. Cocke, and L. A. Gratz, for respondents. The former cited 97 Mass. R., 150;50 Barb., 302;40 Ala., 470, 475;9 Int. Rev. Rec., p. 21, column 3. Mr. Gratz cited Hunter v. Cobb, 1 Bush, 239, from 3 Am. Law Rev., 484; Carpenter v. Snelling, 3 Am. Law Rev., 356; Holyoke Mach. Co. v. Franklin Paper Co., 97 Mass., 150; Vonbeck v. Rose, 50 Barb., 302; Blount v. Bates 40 Ala?? 470, 475.

TURNEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The decree of the Chancellor must be reversed.

A bill was filed by complainant in the Chancery Court of Knoxville, to set aside two deeds of trust for fraud. The suit is abandoned, as to the first deed. The second deed, which is attacked, was made 17th of August, 1866, embracing the property conveyed by the first deed, and conveys additional property providing for the payment of a debt of fifteen hundred dollars, cared for in the first deed, and securing, amongst others, a debt due to Mrs. Eifler, the mother of Nichols, in three notes, amounting to about $4,675, without interest.

The grounds insisted on by complainants are, that Mrs. Eifler is the mother of the maker; that one of the notes, written in German, is made payable to Mrs. Scherf, the sister of Nicholas, but secured to Mrs. Eifler; that the bill expressly charges fraud; that there is, in fact, no consideration for the notes, and that they were made to relations to hinder and delay creditors; that Mrs. Eifler and her son conflict in their statement of the consideration; that the deed has not the proper amount of revenue stamps.

The relationship of the parties may be considered, on an inquiry into the motives prompting the maker of the deed; it is merely a circumstance that may or may not be a badge of fraud, but unless well supported by other proof, is no evidence of a fraudulent purpose. The fact that one of the notes is payable to the sister, may be disposed of by the same remark. This is explained in the answer in the responsive statement, that the note was written in German; that Mrs. Eifler and her children are poorly acquainted with the English language, and thereby led the draftsman of the deed into error. This is the legitimate meaning of the answer, and it is sustained by the facts.

The mistake of the name in the deed is one for which a Court of Chancery would reform, by declaring it to be for the benefit of Mrs. Scherf, to the amount of her note. As to the discrepancy in the answers, we are unable to see that it exists in fact. Mrs. Eifler says the consideration of the note is loaned money. Nicholas says it was, he might say, loaned money, but states the facts to be, that he borrowed some money of his mother, and she sent him goods, for which he paid; he executing his note, including the money loaned, and the money advanced for goods--the one stating directly, and the other circumstantially, that it was loaned money, the results being identical. No proof is adduced on either side, as to the consideration. It was not necessary for the respondents to make any, after their direct denial, until complainant had first proven some act or fact conducing to show fraud.

It is insisted in argument, that, as two of the notes bear interest at ten per cent., therefore the deed is void. This fact only appears by exhibition of the note to the answer. There is no allegation that they are invalid for that cause.

This could not in any event, affect the deed, except as to the notes bearing the unlawful interest; and, in the view we take of the case, can not affect it as to them further than the excess of the usury. Complainants, and not Mrs. Eifler, are the moving actors in the suit; and, if the original consideration is as claimed, loaned money, and there appears no fraudulent purpose to hinder and delay creditors, complainants, as to the notes, stand as would have stood Nicholas Eifler, were he asking the aid of a Court of Chancery to have said notes delivered up and cancelled. Nicholas being insolvent, and having made a deed in trust, this fund belongs to one or the other set of the creditors. The party bringing the suit, and claiming to be entitled to it, must come under the rules governing, in case Nicholas were suing.

The complainants, for one ground, resist the right of Mrs. Eifler, because a statute makes void contracts carrying more than six per cent. In discussing this question, Judge Story, in his work on Eq. Jur., sec. 301, says: “In cases of usury, this distinction has been adopted by courts of equity. All such contracts being declared void by the statute against usury, courts of equity will follow the law in the construction of the statute. If, therefore, the usurer or lender come into a court of equity, seeking to enforce the contract, the Court will refuse any assistance, and repudiate the contract. But, on the other hand,...