Swan v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 03 September 1918 |
| Docket Number | 9211. |
| Citation | 174 P. 1065,71 Okla. 30,1918 OK 504 |
| Parties | SWAN v. BAILEY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A bona fide pre-existing debt owing a wife by her husband forms a good and sufficient consideration for a conveyance or transfer by the husband of his real estate, either in payment of or as security for such debt.
The fact that the parties to a conveyance of real estate are husband and wife does not of itself establish fraud in the transfer as against a creditor of the husband; but their relationship may properly be considered in connection with the other facts and circumstances in evidence tending to impeach the transaction. Where the conveyance is to the prejudice of the husband's creditors, it will be closely scrutinized to see that it is fair and honest, and not a mere contrivance resorted to for the purpose of placing the husband's property beyond the reach of creditors.
More than four months before filing a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, W. D. B. while insolvent conveyed to his wife 210 acres of land worth $60 per acre, subject to incumbrances thereon amounting to $8,900. At the time W. D. B. was indebted to his wife in the sum of approximately $4,000 for rents from her separate estate consisting of her allotment of lands as an Indian citizen. Held, on a demurrer to the evidence in an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy to set aside such conveyance as fraudulent, that the evidence failed to sustain the averments of the petition and that the trial court did not err in taking the case from the jury and rendering judgment for the defendant.
Error from District Court, Grady County; Will Linn, Judge.
Suit by Allen K. Swan, trustee in bankruptcy of William D. Bailey bankrupt, against Clementine Bailey. Judgment for defendant from which plaintiff prosecutes error. Affirmed.
Morgan & Deupree, of Oklahoma City, and Barefoot & Carmichael, of Chickasha, for plaintiff in error.
Riddle & Hammerly, of Chickasha, for defendant in error.
On the 29th day of May, 1915, William D. Bailey, the husband of Clementine M. Bailey, the defendant in error, was, on his voluntary petition filed in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, adjudged a bankrupt. Afterwards, and on the 14th day of July, 1915, Allen K. Swan, the plaintiff in error here, was duly selected as the trustee in sad bankruptcy proceedings. On the 16th day of November following Swan, as trustee, brought suit in the district court of Grady county to vacate and set aside as fraudulent a deed to 210 acres of land situate in Grady county conveyed to Clementine M. Bailey by her husband under date of October 3, 1914; it being charged in the petition that the transfer was made for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of said Bailey, and of which fact the grantee therein was fully cognizant. Issues being joined, a jury was impaneled, and the plaintiff, after making certain formal proofs as to his qualification as trustee, and certain admissions being made in respect thereto not material to the issues presented on review, the plaintiff introduced as a witness in his behalf the bankrupt, W. D. Bailey, who testified at some considerable length in respect to the transactions connected with the making of the deed in question. At the conclusion of Bailey's testimony the defendant interposed a demurrer to the testimony, which was sustained by the court, the jury discharged, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. The one point urged for reversal is that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence.
Counsel direct our attention to sections 1174, 2896, and 2899, Rev L., which, they say supported by the decisions of the court in Brooks v. Garner, 20 Okl. 236, 94 P. 694, 97 P. 995; Wimberly v. Winstock, 46 Okl. 645, 149 P. 238; Crisp v. Gillespey, 50 Okl. 541, 151 P. 196, and Webster v. Clopeck Fish Co., 51 Okl. 702, 152 P. 379, necessitate a reversal of the judgment of the trial court. We have carefully examined the sections of the statute cited, as well as the opinions relied upon, with the result that we are unable to agree with counsel's contention. It is true that section 1174 makes void a conveyance of real estate made without a fair and valuable consideration, or made in bad faith, or for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial