Woodson v. Pool

• Decision Date: 31 January 1854
• Citation: 19 Mo. 340
• Parties: WOODSON, Appellant, v. POOL et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

19 Mo. 340

WOODSON, Appellant,

v.POOL et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1854.

1. Indebtedness at the time of a post-nuptial settlement is evidence of fraud, although there is a diversity of opinion as to the extent of indebtedness necessary to invalidate such a settlement.

2. A conveyance for the benefit of a wife, in consideration of dower previously relinquished by her, is voluntary as to existing creditors.

3. A parol gift of a slave by a husband to his wife does not change the title.

Error to Jackson Circuit Court.

This was a bill in equity in the Jackson Circuit Court by Woodson, an execution purchaser, to declare a settlement of a tract of land in Jackson county, made by James Pool upon his wife and children, void for fraud upon his creditors.

The suit was against the settler, James Pool, James Brown, the trustee, Hall, from whom Pool acquired the land, and Pool's children, the beneficiaries in the trust, the mother having died since the creation of the trust, and Dresser, a tenant of Pool's in possession of the land.

The facts of the case are about these: At the September term, 1846, of the Jackson Circuit Court, four judgments were rendered against Pool, in favor of different persons, for a total of about $2000. These judgments were founded on notes payable immediately, the earliest of which was dated as far back as August, 1842. The others were dated in August, 1845, and February and June, 1846. The land in controversy was sold in March, 1848, under execution upon these judgments, and Woodson, the plaintiff, became the purchaser for $130, and took a sheriff's deed in September, 1848.

Hall was the original owner of the land, and sold it in January, 1845, to James Pool for $300, the ground being then unimproved. At the time of the purchase, Pool and his wife said they wanted to buy it for her and her children, and offered to pay for it with a negro woman, that they said Pool had some years before given to his wife, for a relinquishment of her dower in a lot in Independence that Pool had sold to Fristoe. Hall declined taking the negro, but told them if they would sell the woman, and take a note from the purchaser, he wonld take it for the land. Shortly afterwards Pool sold the woman for $400, received $100 in cash, and the purchaser's note for $300, payable to himself, which he assigned to Hall to pay for the land, and Hall executed his bond in January, 1845, to James Brown, (Mrs. Pool's brother,) for the title, to be held by him in trust for Mrs. Pool, and after her death, for the use of her children by the present marriage. Afterwards, in July, 1845, upon the payment of the note, the deed was accordingly made to Brown upon these expressed trusts.

Pool resided at Independence several years before 1843, and owned a house and lot there, which he sold to Fristoe, and removed to Arkansas. He returned to Independence in 1843, where he has since resided. In January, 1845, the only property he owned was the negro woman sold to pay for the land in controversy, her child, two or three years old, his tools and shop materials, and a house and lot in Independence that he had previously bought of Parker, and sold to Stone in August, 1845. Pool's business was wagon making and blacksmithing, which he carried on quite extensively in shops on his lot. He sold his lot, shop and tools to Stone, August 15th, 1845, for $2200, $500 of which he received, and the balance was paid to Parker in payment of what he owed Parker. After selling this property, Pool commenced improving the land in controversy, built a dwelling house and shop on it, for which he expended $1500, and resided and carried on his business there; and when bought by the plaintiff under execution the property was worth $1500. Pool was always in debt, hard pressed for money, reckless about contracting debts, and never able to pay his debts if they had been pressed against him. He was deeply in debt in January, 1845, unable them to pay his liabilities, and at last utterly failed, leaving a large mass of debts yet unpaid.

Pool put in no answer to the bill. The mother died before the commencement of the suit, and the children put in formal answers, merely stating that they had no knowledge of the transactions, and calling for strict proof. Upon the trial, no proof was given on the part of the defendants. The court dismissed the plaintiff's bill, and he sued out a writ of error.

Leonard, for plaintiff in error.

The settlement is voluntary, and the plaintiff stands in the place of a prior creditor, and therefore it is void as to him, as a shere matter of law. Reade v. Livingston, 3 J. C. R. 491-500. This rule has been adhered to, in all its rigor, in several states: (Miller v. Thompson, 3 Porter, 196. O'Daniel v. Crawford, 4 Dev. 197. Bogard v. Saidly, 4 S. & M. 302. Izzard v. Izzard, 1 Bailey's Eq. Rep. 228-36;) and although it has been relaxed in others, this cause cannot be brought within any exception that has yet been recognized. Hutchinson v. Kelly, 1 Robinson's (Virg.) 128-142. Sextan v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229. Vanwick v. Sewar, 18 Wend. 398-402. Beckhouse v. Jett, 1 Brock. 210-11; Hopkirk v. Randolph, 2 Brock. 137. Chamberlain v. Sample, 2 Rand. [Va.] 399. How v. Ward, 4 Greenl. Rep. 198. The plaintiff stands in the place of the creditors under whose judgments he purchased, clothed with all their rights; so that, if the settlement be void as to any one of them, it is,...