Whelpley v. Stoughton

• Decision Date: 11 May 1897
• Citation: 112 Mich. 594,70 N.W. 1098
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WHELPLEY v. STOUGHTON.

70 N.W. 1098

112 Mich. 594

WHELPLEY v. STOUGHTON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 11, 1897

Error to circuit court, Van Buren county; George M. Buck, Judge.

Action by Henry Whelpley against Clarissa S. Stoughton on a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of defendant plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

T. J Cavanaugh, for appellant.

Lincoln H. Titus, for appellee.

HOOKER, J.

The principal legal question in this case is whether a married woman's note is supported by a sufficient consideration to make it binding upon her separate property where it is given for the surrender of, and to prevent the payee from attempting to collect, a note of the same amount against the husband, by attacking the validity of the transfer by said husband to the wife of all his property, including a farm worth about $8,000, upon the claim that such transfer was voluntary and in fraud of his creditors. Many decisions of this court support the proposition that the executory contract of a married woman is not binding upon her, unless made upon a consideration involving or relating to her separate estate. As to this she may contract, even to the extent of giving a mortgage for her husband's debt. The record shows that the defendant had title, by deed from her husband, to valuable property. This deed was given at a time when the plaintiff held a promissory note against him. It is asserted that the husband, at the time of giving these deeds conveyed to the defendant all of his property, subject to execution. If, as contended, this was a voluntary conveyance such property (although defendant's separate property under a deed valid as against the husband) was subject to the plaintiff's claim in a court of equity. And this is true if the consideration was nominal or so grossly inadequate as to warrant the conclusion that the conveyance was fraudulent as against creditors. If, under these circumstances, and to relieve herself from an attack upon the property conveyed, she saw fit to promise to pay the husband's debt, to relieve what had become her separate property from liability, it was a contract in relation to her own property, and valid. It is said that the evidence does not show that this was the situation, but clearly shows the contrary. The plaintiff produced testimony tending to show that he learned that the defendant's husband had conveyed all of his property to his wife, and deeds of premises said to be worth...