Treat v. Curtis

• Decision Date: 02 April 1878
• Citation: 124 Mass. 348
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: William W. Treat v. John Curtis & wife

124 Mass. 348

William W. Treat v. John Curtis & wife

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

April 2, 1878

[Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Writ of entry to recover a parcel of land in Boston. Plea nul disseisin. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., it appeared that John Curtis conveyed the demanded premises, on December 5, 1870, to his brother Lawrence Curtis, who, by a deed dated December 6, 1870, and acknowledged in the April following, conveyed the same to Bridget Curtis, the wife of John.

The demandant testified that, about December 1, 1870, John Curtis owed the firm of Henry Mayo & Co., of which the demandant was a member, about $ 2700, for which, on that day, they sued him and attached his real estate; and that about $ 2200 of the same was paid on or before December 6, 1870, at which time the attachment was dissolved.

Evidence was introduced tending to show that John Curtis has acquired habits of intemperance, so as at times to be unfit to do business; that when the attachment was made, his wife made up the $ 2200 above mentioned, by borrowing $ 700 of her friends and $ 1500 of one McLaughlin, giving him, on December 6 1870, her note for $ 1500, secured by a mortgage on the real estate; that John took his deed of December 5, to his brother Lawrence, expecting to borrow enough money of him to pay all his debts, and to leave the deed with him as security, or to return the deed to the wife; that, instead of that, John borrowed $ 500 of Lawrence, and left the deed with him, and on December 14, 1870, after his return without the deed, the mortgage to McLaughlin not being good, the $ 500 borrowed of Lawrence Curtis was paid to McLaughlin, and he released his mortgage on the land, and gave up the mortgage note and took a chattel mortgage upon a portion of John's personal property, together with John's note for $ 1000, which mortgage has never been paid or foreclosed.

Evidence was also introduced tending to show that on December 5, 1870, John Curtis did not owe over $ 100 aside from his debt to Henry Mayo & Co., and that he owned personal property, consisting of wood, fish, and horses and wagons, claimed to be worth about $ 3000.

John Curtis continued to trade with Henry Mayo & Co. at the rate of about $ 1000 a month for about twenty months, after the conveyance was made, paying them on account from time to time; but the demandant testified that he was at all times in their debt at least $ 500; and that there had never been any settlement of accounts between Mayo & Company and John Curtis, from the time when he began trading with them until he left off. There was no other evidence on this point except the fact that, in the bill of items in the original action, the first item charged therein was dated, as delivered, October 21, 1871, and the auditor's report hereinafter mentioned.

On April 2, 1873, the deed from Lawrence Curtis to Bridget Curtis was put on record; and on April 9, 1873, Henry Mayo & Co. sued John Curtis and made a special attachment of the property, and on October 7, 1875, recovered judgment for $ 2298.52 damages, and $ 104.93 costs. In December, 1875, the property was sold on execution to the demandant, who bought the same in behalf of Henry Mayo & Co.

The demandant contended that the conveyance to Bridget Curtis was made to defraud creditors, and was void. The tenants contended that the cause of the conveyances was to protect the loan of Lawrence Curtis, and also because the habits of John Curtis rendered in unsafe for him to hold and manage property; that, at the time of the conveyance, he owned more than enough other visible property to pay all his debts; that all his debts then existing were paid in full; and that Bridget Curtis paid valuable consideration for the conveyance from her husband, such consideration being the money raised by her for the discharge of the attachment as above mentioned.

The demandant, on cross-examination, testified that the first item in the original account was...