Vietor v. Swisky

• Decision Date: 16 December 1902
• Citation: 65 N.E. 625,200 Ill. 257
• Parties: VIETOR et al. v. SWISKY et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

200 Ill. 257

65 N.E. 625

VIETOR et al.

v.SWISKY et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 16, 1902.

Error to appellant court, First district.

Bill by George F. Vietor and others against Harry Swisky and another. Judgment of the appellate court (87 Ill. App. 583) affirming a dismissal of the bill, and complainants bring error. Reversed.

Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiffs in error.

WILKIN, J.

This was a creditor's bill brought by the plaintiffs in error in the circuit court of Cook county to set aside a conveyance by Harry Swisky of certain real estate in that county to his wife, Bertha Swisky, and to subject said real estate to sale to satisfy a judgment of plaintiffs in error against said Harry Swisky. The only question was whether the conveyance was fraudulent, and made to hinder and delay plaintiffs in error in the collection of their judgment, or was made in payment of a bona fide debt due from Harry Swisky to his wife. The master found and reported that the conveyance was fraudulent, as charged, and recommended that a decree be entered setting it aside, as prayed in the bill. The chancellor sustained objections to the master's report, and dismissed the bill on the hearing. The appellate court affirmed the decree, and the complainants then sued out this writ of error to reverse the judgment of the appellate court and the decree of the circuit court.

It appeared from the evidence that the judgment of plaintiffs in error for $123.25 was for merchandise sold and delivered by them, as wholesale merchants of New York, to Harry Swisky, who was in the clothing business in Chicago; that Swisky failed in business, and his property, except that in controversy, was sold under execution to pay his debts; that a few days before his failure he made and delivered the deed in controversy. It also appeared that, beginning some time about 1878, said Bertha Swisky received from her father, for a period of eight or nine years, $110 each month, which, as received, she turned over to her husband, and in 1888 received from her father's estate, $6,000, which she also turned over to said Harry Swisky. The master found that no note or other evidence of indebtedness was given by said Harry to his wife for these sums; that no interest was ever paid or demanded, no accounting had or repayment asked for, and that the moneys so turned over by Bertha Swisky to her husband were a gift to him, and constituted no consideration for the conveyance. It was satisfactorily shown by the evidence that considerable sums of money were received by the wife from her father and his estate and delivered to the husband, but the material question is, was the money given to him, or was it loaned with the understanding...