Wasson v. Patton
| Decision Date | 18 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 4-3721 |
| Citation | 79 S.W.2d 276,190 Ark. 397 |
| Parties | WASSON v. PATTON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Newton Chancery Court; Sam Williams, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Shinn Henley & Rea, for appellants.
M. A Hathcoat and Shouse & Walker, for appellees.
The appellee, Joe Patton, was the cashier of the Bank of Western Grove, Arkansas, for about seventeen years. During this time he acquired several tracts of land in Newton County, and his business and that of the bank prospered until the collapse of values succeeding the year 1929. In 1920 he conveyed a farm to his wife, Claytie Patton. In December, 1931, the Bank of Western Grove became insolvent. On September 10, 1931, Joe Patton was indebted to the bank in the sum of $ 900 evidenced by two notes, and at the time of the insolvency of the bank he was also indebted to the Union Trust Company on his individual note in the sum of $ 550, and further indebted as an indorser on three notes executed by the Bank of Western Grove to the said trust company in approximately the sum of $ 13,000. He was the owner of eight shares of stock in the Bank of Western Grove of the par value of $ 800 upon which a stock assessment for that amount was levied. The note for $ 550 to the Union Trust Company bore the signatures of Joe Patton and Claytie Patton, as makers.
On June 6, 1932, Claytie Patton conveyed, by deed of that date, her farm to Carl Nichols. On July 8, 1932, Joe and Claytie Patton executed a mortgage on a tract of real estate to Laura Felton to secure a debt of $ 1,250. On December 31, 1932, Joe Patton and Claytie Patton, his wife, executed a mortgage to Nettie Cooper, to secure a debt of $ 300. On December 30, 1932, the same parties executed a mortgage to Fred W. Patton to secure a debt of $ 500, and on the following day mortgaged another tract of land to Mrs. S. C. Patton, mother of Fred W. Patton, to secure a debt of $ 500. On September 9, 1932, the Pattons executed a mortgage to C. W. Cotes to secure a debt of $ , and on the 9th day of September, 1932, to secure a debt of $ 1,750, executed a mortgage on still another parcel of land to Mrs. L. C. Willis.
This suit was instituted by the appellants for judgment against Joe Patton and Claytie Patton, and to cancel the deed made by Claytie Patton to Nichols, and the mortgages before noted on the ground that they were executed for the purpose of cheating and defrauding the appellants in the collection of their debts. It was alleged that the grantees in the several conveyances knew of the obligations of the said Joe and Claytie Patton; that the considerations named in these conveyances were simulated, and that the grantees joined with the grantors in the purpose of defrauding the appellants.
The Pattons and the grantees in the several conveyances were made defendants, all of whom answered denying the allegations of the complaint; the grantees in the mortgages averring that the same were executed to secure valid, and subsisting debts due them. Mrs. Claytie Patton averred that her purported signature to the $ 550 note was not her genuine signature, that it was not made by one having authority to sign her name, and that it was made without her knowledge or consent.
The decree gave judgment against Joe Patton in favor of the plaintiffs, and dismissed the complaint as to the other defendants.
The questions for our determination on the appeal are solely ones of fact, and the correctness of the decree must be conceded, unless it should appear that the conclusions reached by the trial court are against the preponderance of the testimony.
It is conceded that the conveyance by Mrs. Patton to Nichols was purely voluntary and should be set aside if Mrs. Patton was jointly indebted with her husband to the Union Trust Company. There was evidence tending to show that Patton conveyed land to his wife in consideration of a small debt he owed her, but there is no evidence tending to show that he was indebted to any one at that time. The inference to be drawn from the testimony is that he was then solvent and remained so for a number of years thereafter. He therefore had the right to give this farm to his wife and convey it to her by deed. Nor is there any real contention made that this conveyance was fraudulent or void.
To Mrs Patton's answer denying execution of the note, an affidavit was attached denying the genuineness of her signature, and stating that it had not been made with her knowledge and consent. This cast the burden of proof upon the appellants to establish the authenticity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sieb's Hatcheries v. Lindley
...fraudulent. Gage v. Chastain, 183 Ark. 641, 37 S.W.2d 705. See also Campbell v. Carlisle, 190 Ark. 1103, 83 S.W.2d 536; Wasson v. Patton, 190 Ark. 397, 79 S.W.2d 276; McCown v. Taylor, 186 Ark. 273, 53 S.W.2d 424; Waters v. Merit Pants Company, 76 Ark. 252, 88 S.W. Before a creditor can com......
- O'Neil v. New York Life Insurance Co.
-
Lessman v. Dawson
...debtor insolvent and he does not become insolvent until some time afterward. (Emphasis added.) The Arkansas cases of Wasson v. Patton, 190 Ark. 397, 79 S.W.2d 276 (1935), Mente & Co., Inc. v. Westbrook, 181 Ark. 96, 24 S.W.2d 976 (1930), and Fisher v. Knight, 211 Ark. 465, 200 S.W.2d 799 (1......
-
Nicklaus v. PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO., RUSSELLVILLE, ARK.
...money, nor can I find any facts which would have charged the defendant bank with any such notice. The law of Arkansas, Wasson v. Patton, 190 Ark. 397, 79 S.W.2d 276 (1935), like the federal law, also holds that a preference of one creditor over another does not in itself make the transfer t......