Hay v. Boggs

• Decision Date: 08 January 1914
• Parties: HAY v. BOGGS et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

137 P. 474

77 Wash. 329

HAY v. BOGGS et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 8, 1914

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Clarke County; Donald McMaster, Judge.

Action by Laura F. Hay against Esther C. Boggs and others. Judgment for plaintiff for less than the relief demanded, and she appeals. Judgment set aside and cause remanded, with directions.

Charles R. Crouch, of Seattle, for appellant.

W. W Sparks and Miller, Crass & Wilkinson, all of Vancouver, for respondents.

MORRIS J.

Prior to September 2, 1911, appellant and Aaron Hay were husband and wife. On that day a decree of divorce was granted appellant, in which all of the property, both real and personal, then owned or possessed by Aaron Hay, was awarded to appellant. So far as this record goes, the only property affected by this decree was 40 acres of land in Clarke county, for which Aaron Hay had obtained a contract of purchase from the Northern Pacific Railway Company, on August 5, 1904, and while he and appellant were husband and wife. This tract was on August 24, 1907, assigned by Hay, representing himself as an unmarried man, to Esther C Boggs, his aunt. On July 2, 1908, all payments having been made, the land was deeded by the railway company to Mrs Boggs. In 1912 appellant commenced this action in which, alleging that the assignment and deed to Mrs. Boggs were fraudulent as to her and were for the use and benefit of Aaron Hay, she prayed that the land be conveyed to her, and her title quieted as against Aaron Hay and Mrs. Boggs. Aaron Hay defaulted, and Mrs. Boggs answered, denying the fraudulent character of the transfer, and alleging she was a purchaser for value. On the trial it appeared for the first time that 25 acres of the land had been exchanged by Mrs. Boggs for 18 lots at Klamath Falls, Or.; the person with whom such exchange was made and who now holds title to the 25 acres being, so far as is here shown, an innocent purchaser. The lower court in deciding the issues gave it as his opinion that the assignment and deed to Mrs. Boggs were collusive and in fraud of appellant's rights, and that she should be awarded the property, holding that Mrs. Boggs was a trustee for the Hays for the 40 acres, and that appellant was entitled to a conveyance of the 15 acres, and ordered the same to be made within 30 days, but made no reference to the 40 acres further than to find it had been sold by Mrs. Boggs. Appellant asked the lower court to award her a judgment against Mrs. Boggs for the sum of $4,450, as the value of the 25 acres, which being refused, she appeals.

The lower court...