Wood v. Chambers

• Citation: 20 Tex. 247
• Parties: JOSEPH H. WOOD v. JOSEPH CHAMBERS.
• Decision Date: 01 January 1857
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

20 Tex. 247

JOSEPH H. WOOD

v.JOSEPH CHAMBERS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1857.

Where on a question of fraud, the court has, at the request of one party, called the attention of the jury to certain parts of the testimony as proper to be considered by them in determining their verdict, the judgment will not be reversed because the court at the request of the other party (who obtained the verdict), afterwards called the attention of the jury to certain other parts of the testimony in similar terms; but such mode of calling the attention of the jury, at the request of either party, to particular circumstances in proof, is improper.

On an issue whether a conveyance was made to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, it was held not to be proper to instruct the jury, “that the payment of a valuable and adequate consideration for the land, is a circumstance that the jury should consider in determining the good faith and fair dealing of the purchaser;” but such instruction was held not to be good ground of reversal, where the court, in another charge, previously given, had clearly and distinctly presented the true questions for the jury to decide, and the evidence upon which they must decide, in proper application to the facts of the case; the whole charge not being unfavorable to the appellant. 15 Tex. 188;22 Tex. 50;24 Tex. 518;28 Tex. 759.

In like case the following instruction was held to have been improper, but for like cause the court refused to reverse the judgment: That the defendant's (purchaser's) causing an investigation to be made as to the right of the Raileys (defendant's vendors) to convey a good title, is another circumstance for the jury to consider in determining the good faith and fair dealing of the defendant in the transaction. 2 Tex. 284;23 Tex. 452;28 Tex. 371.

The conveyance of the homestead for a valuable consideration cannot be deemed a conveyance to defraud creditors, from whose claims there is a permanent, enduring exemption, placed beyond the power even of legislative authority. 25 Tex. 113;26 Tex. 551.

Appeal from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor.

Action of trespass to try title to four hundred acres of land, by appellant against appellee, commenced in Austin county, and removed by change of venue to Washington. Plaintiff claimed by purchase at sheriff's sale under execution on judgments, dated April 18th, 1851, and November 12th, 1851, recovered by plaintiff against Charles Railey in Austin county, in suits commenced on the 6th of June, 1849. One judgment was for $928, and the other for $721.60.

Defendant claimed by deed from Charles Railey to James A. Railey for two of the four hundred acres in controversy, dated October 6th, 1849, purporting to be in consideration of $800 paid by said James; and from said James to defendant, dated February 12th, 1851, purporting to be in consideration of $1,500; and by deed from Charles Railey, and Jane his wife, to defendant, for the other two hundred acres, described as their present residence, purporting to be in consideration of $2,000 paid by said defendant, dated also February 12th, 1851.

Plaintiff alleged that these deeds were made to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors of said Charles Railey, of which defendant had notice; and this was the issue tried. The nature of the evidence introduced appears from the instructions to the jury, and as its sufficiency to sustain the verdict was not discussed, it is omitted. The plaintiff requested the court to give the following instructions, and they were given accordingly:

1st. That a purchase of land, with the knowledge that the vendor is selling to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors, although for a valuable consideration, is void as against creditors.

2d. If the jury believe, from the evidence adduced, that Charles Railey executed a deed to his son, James Railey, on the 6th of October, 1849, for 200 acres of the land in controversy, with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors, and if they further believe from the evidence adduced, that Chambers knew at the time he purchased, that James Railey was too poor to make such a purchase, and that the conveyance from Charles Railey to his son, James Railey, was a combination between them to hinder, delay or defraud Charles Railey's creditors, then they will find said two hundred acres of land, which James Railey conveyed to Chambers, for the plaintiff.

3d. If the jury believe, from the evidence adduced, that Jane Railey was aiding and assisting her husband, Charles Railey, to place their remaining 200 acres of land out of the reach of his creditors, with the intent to defraud them by their deed to Chambers, on the 12th February, 1851, and if they believe, from the evidence, that Chambers knew of this intention, then said deed is void as against Charles Railey's creditors, unless Charles and Jane Railey occupied said 200 acres of land as their homestead at the time of said sale.

4th. Fraud may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and the jury must look to all the circumstances in proof connected with the transaction.

5th. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that Charles Railey and Jane Railey were indebted and in embarrassed circumstances, it is one fact that they may consider in ascertaining the fraud. The pendency of the suits of Wood v. Chambers, in the district court of Austin county, is another fact to be considered by the jury, if they believe said suits were pending when said deeds were made. If the jury believe that Charles Railey said that he would not pay the debt of Wood, and Chambers knew it, this is another fact that they may consider in determining upon the question of fraud. The relationship between the Raileys is another circumstance that may be considered in determining upon the fraud.

If the jury believe, from the evidence, that James Railey was not able to pay his father for the 200 acres of the land purchased by him, this is another circumstance that may be considered by the jury to ascertain if there be fraud in any of the transactions. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the purchase money for the whole four hundred acres of land was paid by Chambers to Charles Railey, and no part of it was paid to James Railey, this is another circumstance that may be considered by the jury to ascertain the question of fraud. And the jury must consider the whole testimony in the case, in connection with the badges of fraud, and those badges of fraud, if they exist, must have been known by Chambers at the time he purchased the land, to affect his title. If the jury find only 200 acres of the land in controversy for plaintiff, they will state which 200 acres they find; the 200 acres in the deed from James Railey to Chambers, or the 200 acres in the deed from Charles and Jane Railey to Chambers.

The fact of the indebtedness of Charles Railey to Jos. H. Wood, having been determined in the suits between them, that fact cannot be inquired into or questioned in this suit, but the judgments are to be considered as just and meritorious demands in favor of Joseph H. Wood.

Defendant requested the following instructions, which were also given: 1st. That this suit being an action of trespass to try title, the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's. 2d. Mere indebtedness on the part of the vendor at the time of the sale is not of itself proof of fraud, or of fraudulent intent in making the sale. 3d. That the deeds from Charles, Jane and James A. Railey to defendant Chambers, prima facie convey a good title, and in order to set aside and annul said deeds, the plaintiff must prove that there was fraud on the part of the Raileys, and that Chambers was a party to the fraud, or had full knowledge of it at the time he made the...