Waters v. Merrit Pants Co.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1905 |
| Citation | 88 S.W. 879 |
| Parties | WATERS et ux. v. MERRIT PANTS CO. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. C. Rodgers, for appellants. W. D. Lee, for appellee.
This is an action brought by appellee, Merrit Pants Company, against appellants, H. M. Waters and wife, in which appellee seeks to subject certain lands to the payment of a debt in the sum of $380.75 due appellee by said H. M. Waters. It is alleged that H. M. Waters, being insolvent and indebted to appellee, purchased the land in controversy from one McClure, and, with intent to defraud his creditors, caused the title to be conveyed to his wife. The proof in the case consisted only of the testimony of McClure and Mrs. Waters, and it appears therefrom that McClure sold the land to H. M. Waters at a fixed price of $300, which was paid by delivery to McClure of a lot of cattle and a small stock of merchandise —a remnant of the stock carried by Waters as a merchant—and that, at the request of H. M. Waters, McClure made the deed to his wife. McClure testified that the cattle were taken at a valuation of either $64 or $67. Mrs. Waters testified the value of the cattle was fixed at $80, and that they were her separate property. She also testified that her husband owed her about $1,000 for a lot of cattle and horses which she had sold him when they were married, 20 years previously, and for proceeds of sale of her farm 13 years previously; that no note or other evidence of the indebtedness was executed by the husband; and that she had given him credit on the debt for $220, the estimated value of the stock of merchandise used in payment of this tract of land. The chancellor found that the conveyance to Mrs. Waters was fraudulent, but that her property, the cattle, of the value of $80, had been used in the purchase, and decreed a lien in favor of appellee for $220, the value of the stock of merchandise. The defendants appealed.
It is settled by the decisions of this court that an insolvent husband, when justly indebted to his wife, may, without fraud, prefer her claim to that of other creditors, and make valid appropriation of his property to pay it, even though the result be to deprive other creditors of the means to satisfy their claims. But such transactions between husband and wife are viewed by the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial