Thysell v. McDonald

• Citation: 134 Minn. 400
• Decision Date: 17 November 1916
• Docket Number: Nos. 19,860 - (27).,s. 19,860 - (27).
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: EMIL T. THYSELL v. HENRY T. McDONALD AND OTHERS.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

134 Minn. 400

EMIL T. THYSELL v. HENRY T. McDONALD AND OTHERS.¹

Nos. 19,860 - (27).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 17, 1916.

Action in the district court for Clay county by the administrator of the estate of Henry McDonald, deceased, to set aside a certain deed on

the ground that it was a fraudulent conveyance as to the creditors of decedent. The case was tried before Roeser, J., who made findings, incorporating in them the negative answer of the jury to the question mentioned in the first paragraph of the opinion, and ordered judgment in favor of defendants. From an order denying his motion for amended findings, conclusions of law and order for judgment or for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

W. George Hammett, for appellant.

Christian G. Dosland and Victor Oleson, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

The decedent owned a farm of 160 acres in Clay county upon which he resided with his wife and son, and 80 acres of which was his homestead. The son, the defendant Henry T. McDonald, remained upon the farm and worked for his parents for some 12 years after he became of age. The parents then conveyed the farm to him, reserving to themselves for life the use of certain rooms in the dwelling house, and of certain parts of the barn and granary. The son assumed a mortgage of $1,600 upon the farm, and his claim for wages for his services during the preceding 12 years constituted the remainder of the consideration for the deed. Shortly after the execution of the deed, the father died. Some two years later, plaintiff was appointed administrator of his estate upon the petition of creditors, and thereafter brought this action to set aside the deed as fraudulent and void as against such creditors. At the trial, the question as to whether the deed had been made for the purpose of hindering, delaying or defrauding creditors was submitted to a jury and answered in the negative. The court incorporated this special verdict in its findings, and further found, in substance, that the son purchased the farm in good faith for its reasonable value, and had paid the full purchase price, over and above the mortgage, by applying thereon the sum of $3,200 due him for wages. The court held the deed to be valid and directed judgment for defendants. Plaintiff made a motion for amended findings, and also for a new trial, and appealed from the order denying his motions.

At the time of executing the deed, the decedent owed debts exceeding in amount the value of the property retained by him; and plaintiff insists that the deed was a voluntary conveyance, without consideration, and void for that reason as against prior creditors. It is well settled that, where a debtor makes a conveyance without consideration and without retaining sufficient other property to pay his then existing debts, such conveyance may be set aside by his creditors to the extent necessary to enable them to apply the unexempt property so conveyed in payment of such previously existing debts. Filley v. Register, 4 Minn. 296 (391); Tupper v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 385, 4 N. W. 621; Underleak v. Scott, 117 Minn. 136, 134 N. W. 731; Sovell v. County of Lincoln, 129 Minn. 356, 152 N. W. 727.

To sustain his claim that the deed in controversy was without consideration, plaintiff invokes the rule that a child, remaining in the family after becoming of age, is not entitled to pay for services rendered, unless the services were performed pursuant to a prior agreement that he should receive compensation therefor. This rule is also well established. McCord v. Knowlton, 79 Minn. 299, 82 N. W. 589; Einolf v. Thomson, 95 Minn. 230, 103 N. W. 1026, 104 N. W. 290, 547; Begin v. Begin, 98 Minn. 122, 107 N. W. 149; Beneke v. Beneke, 119 Minn. 441, 138 N. W. 689, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 381; Knight v. Martin, 124 Minn. 191, 144 N. W. 941; Lansing v. Gregory, 128 Minn. 496, 151 N. W. 277. Where such services have been rendered without a prior agreement for compensation, a subsequent deed, given in payment therefor, is without consideration and may be set aside at the suit of prior creditors of the grantor. McCord v. Knowlton, 79 Minn. 299, 82 N. W. 589. But where such services are rendered pursuant to an agreement that compensation shall be made therefor, they constitute a valid consideration for a conveyance to the child. Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341, 64 N. W. 818; Leqve v. Stoppel, 64 Minn. 152, 66 N. W. 124.

The finding of the court that the sum of $3,200 was due the son for wages, at the execution of the deed, necessarily included a finding that his services were performed under an agreement that he should receive compensation for such services; and the main contention of plaintiff is that such finding is...