Thomas v. Anderson et als.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1915 |
| Citation | 76 W.Va. 496 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Thomas v. Anderson et als. |
1. Fraudulent Conveyances Eight to Enforce Trust.
Where la, nd is conveyed to another without consideration, to hold in trust for the grantors, and with the intention of thereby preventing the same from being subjected to a threatened claim for damages, and it turns out that there was no such claim, and that the grantor had no creditor entitled to subject the land to the payment of a debt, equity will enforce the trust notAvithstanding the purpose of the parties in making such deed. (p. 498).
2. Contracts Effect of Illegality Fraudulent Conveyances.
If one of the parties to such fraudulent conveyance by allegation and proof of only a part of the facts constituting the transaction is able to make out a prima facie ease for recovery against the other party, the defendant's guilty participation in the fraudulent transaction will not preclude him from proving as matter of defense the illegal part of the contract, (p. 502).
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County. Suit by George C. Thomas against Eliza Anderson and others. Decree for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
Reversed, and hill dismissed.
W. F. Boggess and Ryan & Boggess, for appellants.
Elmer L. Stone and David A. Cronin and John M. Baker, for appellee.
The decree appealed from awarding the relief prayed for by the bill, and denying the defenses pleaded in the several answers, adjudged that the deed of June 21, 1899, between plaintiff and defendant Esther Thomas to defendant Eliza Anderson, for eighty-seven acres of land, was duly executed and delivered to and accepted by the grantee on the date thereof, and that the two notes bearing the same date for the sum of two hundred dollars each, signed by the grantee, in the name of Eliza Aplin, payable to the order of said Esther Thomas, with interest from date, and due and payable in thirty and sixty days from date respectively, were, prior to the institution of this suit, for a valuable consideration, assigned and transferred to plaintiff; that a vendor's lien on said land was retained in said deed to secure the payment of said notes, and that plaintiff is entitled to enforce said lien against said tract by reason of being the owner and holder of said notes secured thereby, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover of said Eliza Anderson the principal of said notes and interest, amounting to the sum of $721.00. And accordingly it was further decreed that plaintiff recover of the said Eliza Anderson the said sum of $721.00, with interest and costs; and that defendant Nita Evans took and holds said tract subject to said vendor's lien, and to the rights of plaintiff thereunder, and that said lien constituted a valid, binding and subsisting lien against said land; and also that unless said Eliza Anderson, Esther Thomas, or Nita Evans, or some one for them, should pay to plaintiff the sum so decreed, tne special commissioner thereby appointed should sell said land upon the terms, and as thereby directed, to pay and satisty said decree.
The proof in accordance with the allegation of the bill ana answers shows that the land decreed to be sold was conveyed to defendant Esther Thomas, then Esther Waybright, by tier father W. H. Alpin, by deed of June 19, 1885; that suosequently, on May 6, 1903, her father conveyed to her another tract of three hundred and ninety acres, which included tne eighty-seven acre tract, and which land she, subsequently, on October 28, 1908, leased to the Carter Oil Company, for oil and gas; and that on February 9, 1909, she conveyed to her daughter, the defendant Nita Evans, one hundred and eight acres out of said larger tract, and which also included said eighty-seven acre tract.
Plaintiff and defendant Esther Thomas, as the pleadings and proofs show, were married November 10, 1895; they separated about June 17, 1907, and in April, 1909, she obtained against him a decree of absolute divorce; they lived together as husband and wife on said land prior to June 21, 1899, and for many years thereafter, and until their separation, in 1907, except for a very short interval, and after, that and until she conveyed the land to her daughter, the said Nita Evans, she continued to occupy the same, paying all the taxes thereon, and at no time did the said Eliza Anderson, the pretended grantee, ever have possession thereof, or claim any right, title or interest therein by reason of said deed, or otherwise.
The several defenses to the bill and the relief prayed for, as presented by the answers and proof thereon, were: First, that the alleged deed of June 21, 1899, to and purporting to secure the alleged notes of Eliza Anderson, was made at the suggestion, if not the procurement, of plaintiff, then the husband of Esther Thomas, and in which he joined, for the purpose of putting the land beyond the reach of Starcher Bros., who, as she may have heard, and as represented to her by plaintiff, were threatening to give her trouble on account of a certain timber contract with her; that both agreed, after consultation with the grantee, Mrs. Anderson, to convey the land to the latter taking her notes, all to be held by the grantors, without any obligation on her part to pay said notes, and the land to be re-conveyed by her to Esther Thomas, as soon as it should be ascertained that Stareher Bros., who in fact had no claim against Mrs. Thomas, was found to have no demand against her, and that plaintiff having procured and participated in the fraud was precluded from asserting any rights by assignment or otherwise in said notes or in the deed, or in the alleged lien securing the same; second, that both deed and notes were wholly without consideration, and that neither were made, executed or delivered with the intent or purpose of binding the parties thereby, but solely for the purposes stated in the first ground of defense, and that never since the said transaction had possession of said land been changed, or payment of the notes demanded by any one, until the Institution of this suit, and laches of plaintiff were pleaded and relied on; third, that said notes were never endorsed or assigned by said Esther Thomas to George C. Thomas, nor was any consideration paid or given by him therefor, but his possession thereof was obtained without authority, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial