Vaughn v. Green
| Decision Date | 07 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | 28573 |
| Citation | 29 S.W.2d 56 |
| Parties | VAUGHN v. GREEN et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appellant's Motion for Rehearing Overruled June 11, 1930.
W. D Roberts and M. E. Morrow, both of West Plains, for appellant.
H. D Green, of West Plains, for respondents.
BLAIR P. J., concurs.WALKER, J., not sitting.
The plaintiff filed his petition in the circuit court of Howell county December, 1926, alleging that he had recovered judgment in the circuit court of Greene county May 27, 1925, against the defendant L. J. Green in the sum of $ 2,000. The cause of action in that suit was the alienation by the defendant L. J. Green of the affections of the wife of the plaintiff, Vaughn. While that suit was pending and before judgment in Greene county, June 2, 1924, L. J. Green conveyed to the defendant Hogan, for a recited consideration of $ 1,500, an undivided one-half interest in 5 acres in Howell county, an undivided one-third interest in 20 acres in Howell county, and also a lot in West Plains. It is alleged that in fact no consideration was paid for the deed, that it was entirely voluntary and made for the purpose of delaying and defrauding the creditors of J. L. Green, and that the grantee, R. S. Hogan, was fully cognizant of that purpose and participated in the fraud when he received the deed. The petition prays that the deed be set aside, that the lands covered by the deed be ordered sold for the satisfaction of plaintiff's judgment, and that defendant Hogan be enjoined from disposing of the land.
The former wife of the plaintiff, Vaughn, at the time the judgment in the alienation suit was rendered, was the wife of the defendant Green. Green's first wife in 1921 had obtained a decree of divorce against him, and at the time of these later occurrences she was the wife of the plaintiff, Vaughn. She appeared as a witness for the plaintiff, having knowledge of the defendant's intimate affairs and the value of his property, claiming that she helped to produce its value while she was yet his wife.
The trial court heard the evidence and found all the issues for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff introduced no evidence to show that the consideration of $ 1,500 recited in the deed which he seeks to set aside was not in fact paid. The defendant Hogan testified that he paid the consideration in cash. The only thing in support of the allegations of the petition in that respect was the fact that Hogan was the son-in-law of Green during all the times mentioned. He was a banker and an attorney.
When Green's first wife sued him for divorce she obtained judgment for $ 1,500 alimony, and Hogan lent Green the money to pay it. Apparently that debt had been paid Green before this suit was filed. Plaintiff introduced evidence as to the value of the property purchased by Hogan at the time. A good deal of this evidence gives the total value of the country tracts when only a third interest in one tract and a half interest in the other was conveyed. The evidence as to the value of the property actually conveyed was somewhat confusing. The trial court might very well have found from the evidence in the record that $ 1,500 was a reasonable cash value for the land purchased. The defendant Green had other property on which he lived. It stood in the name of himself and his present wife, the former Mrs. Vaughn -- an estate by the entireties. The other undivided interest in the tracts in the country were in the names of the defendant's children. There is no complaint about any transaction by which those titles were so vested.
On cross-examination the defendant Hogan admitted that he knew the property he bought for $ 1,500 was all the defendant Green had except two pieces of property where he lived, that the property conveyed was all Green had subject to execution denied that he took the deed with any intention whatever to defeat a judgment that might be obtained, or to defraud any creditors of Green, that there was no understanding between him and Green that the land was not to be Hogan's. He had heard of the alienation suit, but took no interest in it. The property was worth the money, and Green needed the money, and he conveyed it. The plaintiff introduced one witness who said that Green told him after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial