Vansickle v. Wells, Fargo & Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1900
• Docket Number: 599.
• Citation: 105 F. 16
• Parties: VANSICKLE v. WELLS, FARGO & CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

105 F. 16

VANSICKLE v. WELLS, FARGO & CO.

No. 599.

United States Circuit Court, D. Nevada.

November 14, 1900

From the evidence in this suit it appears that the complainant came to Nevada in 1856, when she was 16 years of age, and then became acquainted with P. W. Vansickle; that they were married in 1857; that they both worked as laborers for a brother of P. W. Vansickle; that the property in controversy was then uncultivated government land in the possession of the brother, from whom P. W. Vansickle acquired it, and he and his wife, since the spring of 1858, have lived upon the land, cultivated and improved it. When they went upon the premises there was a small house, consisting of four rooms,-- two bed rooms, a sitting room, and a kitchen,-- in which they lived and reared a family of five children. In addition to the cultivation of the land and raising crops thereon, they acquired cows, horses, and chickens. Mrs. Vansickle, in addition to her other household duties, made butter; and the butter, chickens, and eggs were sold, among other things, for the support of the family. Within one year after their marriage there was an agreement made between the husband and the wife that she should have all the money realized from the sale of the butter, chickens, and eggs, as her own. In pursuance of this agreement she sold the butter, chickens and eggs on her own account at Virginia City and elsewhere. There were no accounts kept of these sales for several years,-- in fact, not until 1872, when the eldest daughter commenced keeping a memorandum of the sales and receipts from these sources, and of the accounts between her father and mother, and continued keeping such accounts until 1894. The husband often sold the butter, etc., for his wife. Sometimes he paid the money received therefor over to her, and at other times only rendered an account thereof, as he had spent the money. At different times he asked his wife for money, and she gave it to him, for the purpose of paying his debts. The proofs offered with reference to these transactions show an indebtedness from the husband to the wife equal to, if not exceeding, the value of the property at the time it was deeded to her by her husband. With reference to the execution of the deed in 1886 the testimony shows that the wife had at various times stated to her husband that he was largely indebted to her, and that he ought to give her a deed of the property, so that she could take care of herself and family. About the time of the execution of the deed he was taken sick, and the family thought he was seriously ill. On this account she repeated her previous requests, and again urged him to make the deed. The deed was executed and recorded without her knowledge, but he within two months thereafter told her of its execution, and then delivered the deed to her. Prior to the execution and delivery of the deed her husband managed and controlled the property, and directed the work done thereon. Thereafter he had nothing to do with it. The wife and eldest son performed those duties. The husband however, lived with the family on the premises, received his board, and, after he quit the butchering business, conducted and carried on the purchase and sale of chickens and eggs on his own account. The husband was engaged as a butcher and conducted a butcher shop at Genoa for several years before the deed was executed, and thereafter carried on the butchering business, feeding his cattle up to 1894 upon the farm included in the deed and peddled out the meat at different places, wherever he could find a market therefor. At the time of the execution of the deed the husband was indebted to Mr. W. W. Lapham in the sum of $1,500, for which a note had been previously given by him, and owed a few hundred dollars besides,-- in all, about $2,000. At that time he owned about 35 head of horses, of the value of $150 each, and about 200 head of cattle, of the value of $5,000. After the execution of the deed the wife was anxious to repair the house where the family lived. The question as to whether the house should be simply repaired or enlarged was discussed by all members of the family. The younger members were decidedly in favor of having it enlarged. The wife requested her husband to engage a carpenter for her, which he did, and the carpenter was consulted about the changes to be made and expense that would be incurred. W. W. Lapham, a man of means, who had boarded with the family for about 20 years,-- and, according to the testimony, they had 'never taken a cent from him,'-- offered to furnish the money. He said: 'Mrs. Van, you deserve a better house. You have worked hard, very hard. * * * I will give you one thousand dollars, and fix your house in good shape. * * * I will not charge you any interest. ' She said: 'I don't care about taking it. I do not like to go in debt. I like to see my way clear. ' After the carpenters commenced work, and the old dining room had been torn down, Lapham said: 'Mrs. Van, I think it would be cheaper for you to move the old building back, * * * and build a new front altogether. ' She replied by saying 'I don't like to go into debt too much. * * * If you think it will not cost over one thousand dollars, I will try it. ' Lapham paid the bills, and the improvements cost nearly $1,500. After the work was finished, Lapham wanted her to sign two due-bills. When she examined them she noticed the words 'Vansickle ranch,' and thought he was trying to include her husband and the ranch; that the property was hers, the debt was hers, and that her husband had nothing to do with it. She testified that she said to Mr. Lapham: 'What do you mean by 'Vansickle ranch'? Do you include Peter with it?'-- and told him: 'I will never sign that. You could come to-morrow and sue me, and that is the thing I cannot stand. You promised to wait and have patience until I paid you; and if I paid you it was all right, and if I did not it was all right. Is that not the bargain? ' Other words passed between them, and the due-bills were not signed. This indebtedness, together with the note of $1,500, was afterwards, by some transaction between Lapham and P. W. Vansickle, included in the note of $4,000 executed by P. W. Vansickle in favor of W. W. Lapham on the 29th day of March, 1887; the same being the note assigned by Lapham to Wells, Fargo & Co., before maturity, and upon which the judgment in its suit against P. W. Vansickle was obtained. On the day that this note was signed P. W. Vansickle made, executed, and delivered to said Lapham a chattel mortgage upon certain personal property, to wit, 200 head of cattle and 20 head of horses, as security for the payment of the note. Vansickle was then engaged in business as a butcher, and, after the note was executed, permission was given to him by the holder of the note and chattel mortgage to kill the cattle and dispose of the other property. He did so, and made many payments on the note at different times. He always claimed that he had paid the note in full to Lapham. The taxes were always assessed against the land in the name of P. W. Vansickle, after the deed was executed, as before, until about 1899, when it was assessed to Mrs. Lillies M. Vansickle. Mrs. Vansickle testified that she never paid any attention to it; that the assessor never came to her for a statement; that her husband paid the taxes while he was in the butcher business, for the feed of his cattle on her farm. It further appears that the assessors were in the habit of copying the statements from the previous assessment roll; that they made no examination or inquiry into the title, and made no changes in the name of the party to whom the land was assessed, unless objections were made thereto, or the party in whose name it was assessed had died; that this was true generally of all property assessed in Douglas county by them. On November 20, 1866, the husband and wife joined in the execution of a declaration of homestead embracing the property in controversy, and this declaration thereafter, on December 4, 1866, was duly filed and recorded in Douglas county, where the land is situate. On June 11, 1895, they again joined in the execution of a second declaration of homestead upon the same property, which was duly filed and recorded as above.

W. E. F. Deal, for complainant.

M. A. Murphy, for defendant.

HAWLEY District Judge (after stating the facts).

This is a suit in equity to enjoin the defendant from selling certain lands situate in Douglas county, Nev., under an execution issued May 21, 1895, upon a judgment obtained in this court December 12, 1894, by the defendant against P. W. Vansickle for $4,000, with interest and costs. Complainant claims to be the sole owner of the property under and by virtue of a deed executed and delivered to her by her husband, P. W Vansickle, in 1886. It is alleged in the answer that P. W. Vansickle, being indebted to a number of persons, with full knowledge of his insolvency, 'and for the purpose and with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his said creditors, including this defendant, made a pretended sale of the lands and premises described and set forth in the complainant's bill to the complainant, Lillies M. Vansickle, who then was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, and now is, the wife of the said Peter W. Vansickle; that no consideration ever passed or was paid by the said Lillies M. Vansickle to the said Peter W. Vansickle or any other person; * * * that at the time of the pretended transfer of said lands and premises by the said Peter W. Vansickle to the said Lillies M. Vansickle, his wife, she received and accepted said deed of conveyance well knowing the embarrassed financial condition of her said husband, Peter W. Vansickle, and the said deed...