Thomas Reeves, Trustee In Bankruptcy v. Kate Redmond

• Citation: 113 A. 711,95 Vt. 106
• Parties: THOMAS REEVES, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY v. KATE REDMOND
• Decision Date: 03 May 1921
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

113 A. 711

95 Vt. 106

THOMAS REEVES, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY v. KATE REDMOND

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 3, 1921

February Term, 1921.

ACTION OF REPLEVIN. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1920 Chittenden County, Fish, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The opinion states the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Martin S. Vilas for the plaintiff.

Fred B. Thomas for the defendant.

Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, TAYLOR, MILES, and SLACK, JJ.

OPINION

WATSON

The plaintiff, trustee in bankruptcy of Thomas Redmond's bankrupt estate, brings this action of replevin to recover possession of five cows and one horse claimed by plaintiff to belong to Thomas Redmond, husband of the defendant, but to have been turned over by him to her without consideration, and in attempted fraud of his creditors. The cows were sold by the plaintiff and the proceeds held for the benefit of such creditors. The plaintiff allowed Thomas Redmond and the defendant to retain the horse with the understanding that if, on the trial of this cause, the defendant should be found to be the owner, she should of course retain the animal; but if the plaintiff should prevail in this respect defendant and her husband should pay an agreed sum to the plaintiff for the benefit of the creditors of the bankrupt estate.

At the close of the evidence the court ruled that in respect of two of the cows and the horse there was nothing for the jury since as to them there was no such transfer of possession from the bankrupt to his wife as the law requires in order to make the transfer effective against his creditors. This ruling stands upon the record as unchallenged, and hence the questions for review relate solely to the other cows. The defendant claimed to own these remaining cows, by gift from her father when they were calves, and this claim was supported by her evidence. The verdict was for the defendant to recover these three cows, the value of their use from the time they were replevied, and her costs.

For the purpose of showing the evidence, the tendency there-of, the claims, the offers, objections, exceptions, the concessions of the parties, and rulings of the court, the transcript is made a part of the bill of exceptions and is to control. We therefore dispose of all questions presented for review, on what is shown by the transcript. The exceptions are numbered herein the same as in the bill of exceptions.

The plaintiff was asked in his examination in chief, whether or not some information came to him from the records in the town of Shelburne which aided him in drawing the conclusion which led him to bring this suit. On objection being made, the evidence was excluded and exception noted. But no offer was made as to what plaintiff expected to show, and therefore no question was saved. For the same reason exceptions 2, 4, and 5 present no question for review.

3. The defendant, called as a witness by the plaintiff, having testified that she knew of her husband's giving a chattel mortgage to his sister, Mrs. Mary McKenzie, in the fall of 1913, on the cattle which defendant claimed to own, was asked whether she knew that in that mortgage her husband swore he owned those cattle and that they were free and clear of all incumbrance. Plaintiff excepted to the ruling of the court excluding the question, without assigning any ground. The element of the question as to whether defendant knew...