Wilbur v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 01 August 1889 |
| Parties | L.F. WILBUR, ADM'R v. HENRY E. NICHOLS, ET AL |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
The decree of the Court of Chancery dismissing the bill is affirmed and the cause remanded.
Wilbur & Wolcott and W.L. Burnap, for the orator.
OPINIONThe bill in this cause was brought by the administrator of James Nichols in behalf of creditors to set aside the deed of the intestate to the defendants, executed November 10 1884, and the cause heard with that of Mary E. Nichols against the same defendants ante 426.
In the case of Mary E., the widow of James Nichols, the deed in question was held inoperative against the property rights of the oratrix by reason of the fraudulent purpose which prompted its execution.
In this case the master reports that he does not find any fraudulent intent on the part of either party to said deed to defraud the rights of James Nichols' creditors.
It is well settled that a conveyance made by a debtor, though upon an inadequate consideration, or upon no consideration at all if no fraud be intended, is valid if the debtor retains sufficient property to pay his debts. Brackett v Waite, 4 Vt. 389; Dewey v. Long, 25 Vt. 564; Durkee v. Mahoney, 1 Aik. 116. If the debtor is left solvent after such conveyance, creditors cannot complain.
And the question of solvency is to be determined as of the time of the conveyance. If at that time the rights of creditors are not defeated the happening of disaster afterwards, not contemplated at the time of the conveyance, does not affect its validity. Brackett v. Waito, supra.
And in measuring the solvency of a debtor at the time of the conveyance sought to be impeached, regard is to be had to the state of things then existing. The possibility that he may die and that an expensive administration upon his estate will follow, is a contingency that ordinarily would not arise and in a bona fide conveyance would never be expected. Hence, the expense of administration in this case is not a factor in determining the solvency of James Nichols on November 10, 1884.
If a right to recover rent of Henry E. Nichols for his occupancy of the Essex farm and property covered by the lease made to him by his father, exists in the administrator, the funds are ample to satisfy the claims of creditors. The terms of the lease were embodied in a writing drawn by Judge Nichols, which was held by him awaiting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial