35 W. Va. 719 | W. Va. | 1891
At the September rules in the year 1888 Josiah Bartlett filed his bill in the Circuit Court of Barbour county against Geo. G. Cleavenger, Chasteen Cleavenger, Zadock Cleaveu-ger, and C. G. Cleavenger, in which-he alleged that on the 13th day of August, 1888, he recovered a judgment before a justice of said county for two hundred and twenty four dollars and thirty cents, with interest from that day, and three dollars and ten cents costs, against George G. and C. G. Cleavenger, on a note executed by said George G. Cleavenger with C. G. Cleavenger as surety; that at the
On the 7th day of March, 1889, the defendants, Chasteen and Zadock Cleavenger, filed separate answers to the plaintiff’s bill, disclaiming any knowledge or notice of plaintiff’s judgment other than that derived from the certified copy thereof filed with plaintiff’s bill, admitting the purchase of the one hundred and seventy eight-acre tract of land mentioned in the plaintiff’s bill on the 27th day of October, 1885, for the sum of four thousand and five dollars; denying that said consideration was a pretended consideration, or that said deed was executed for'the purpose of delaying, defrauding and hindering the creditors of the defendant George C. Cleavenger, and especially the plaintiff, in the collection of their debts — the said Chasteen Cleavenger, in his answer, claiming that the purchase of said tract of land was a perfectly fair, honorable business transaction, and the consideration mentioned in said deed was in fact paid to the last farthing; that he and his brother purchased said laud jointly ; that he assumed the payment of and paid off certain debts owing by said George G. to one Humphrey McDonald of five hundred dollars,
The defendant Zadock Cleavenger also claimed that said purchase was a square business transaction, and his statement of the manner in which he paid two thousand, two dollars and fifty cents — his half of said purchase-money — • corresponds with the statement contained in the answer of his co-defendant- Chasteen Cleavenger. lie also disclaims any knowledge of the existence of the plaintiff’s debt, and claims that he purchased said land in good faith, with no intention of delaying, defrauding, or hindering the creditors of said George G. or the plaintiff in the collection of their debts. Tie admits that he, George G., and Chasteen are brothers, but claims that he is prepared to show the truth of every allegation contained in his answer.
George G. Cleavenger also answered the plaintiff’s hill, admitting the recovery of the judgment by himself as set forth in the bill, and the sale and conveyance of said one hundred and seventy eight-acre tract of land to his co-defendants, Chastoeu and Zadock Cleavenger, at the price of four thousand and five dollars, on the 27th of October, 1885 ; denying that said sum was a pretended consideration which was not paid in fact, or that said deed was made with the intention or purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding the creditors of respondent, and especially the plaintiff, in the collection of their debts against respondent; claiming that the sale was bona fide, and that the purchase-money was paid to him by said purchasers in the manner and at the time stated in their answers; that said sale was a fair, square business transaction, and that he used nearly all of the purchase-money received by him from said purchasers in liquidating his debts to various parties.
On the 10th day of September, 1889, the First National Bank of Grafton filed its petition in said chancery cause, representing that it was a creditor of the said George G. Cleavenger; that on the 16th day of June, 1885, he, together with F. A. Cleavenger and M. S. Cleavenger, executed a note for one thousand five hundred dollars, dated the day and year aforesaid, and payable six months thereafter to the plaintiff; that it recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of Taylor county on the 26th day of March, 1887, against said F. A., George G., and M. S. Cleavenger for the sum of one thousand six hundred and twenty three dollars, with interest from that date and tweuty one dollars and twenty six cents costs, and that the.same remains wholly unpaid; that the same was docketed in the clerk’s office of the county court of Barbour couuty on the 7th day of April, 1887, as provided by law.
Said petitioner further alleges that said George G.Cleaven-ger was, on the 27th day of October, 1885, the owner of a valuable farm lying in said county, worth twenty five or thirty dollars per acre, upon the faith of which the -said debt was created by petitioner ; that on that day the said George C. Cleavenger, for the purpose of defrauding, hin
Petitioner further says that it is informed and believes and charges as true that the said sale was a fraud; that no such consideration, nor any adequate consideration, was paid for said land; that the grantor and grantees are brothers; that the grantees kuew that the grantor was in debt to petitioner aud others; that the said indebtedness could only be paid by a sale of said land; that, if any of said pretended four thousand and five dollars was paid by the grantees to said Ceorge G. Cleaven-ger, the same was repaid to them by him, or with their connivance; or it was agreed between the grantor and them that the same should be repaid without consideration, and with the fraudulent purpose aforesaid; that no change in the possession of said land occurred after the said purchase, but that said George G. Cleavenger remains still on the same as he has done for many years, using the same as his own; that the said grantees were not able to purchase the said land, being themselves involved for one Abram M. Talbott, who had become insolvent about one year before; that the said P. A. Cleavenger and M. S. Cleavenger are utterly insolvent, aud petitioner relied for the security of said debt principally upon the said real estate of said George G. Cleavenger; that the same was all he had or has ; that said grantees well knew it;- and that the whole pretended sale was a scheme and device to cheat petitioner, plaintiff', and others out of their debts; and, to the end that petitioner may be relieved without a multiplicity of suits, it prays to be made a co-plaintiff' with said Josiah Bartlett, that the said deed may be set aside as fraudulent and void as to its said debt, and the land be sold to pay the same etc.
On the 11th day of September, 1888, Floyd Davison filed his petition in said cause, representing that in the year 1885, previous to the 27th day of October, he became
Poling, Davison & Co. also came in by way of petition asserting a judgment in their favor against said George G. Cleavenger for fifty eight dollars and forty five cents and two dollars and seventy cents costs, making similar allegations as to said conveyance made by George G. Cleavenger to his brothers of said one hundred and seventy eight acres of land, asking that their petition might be filed in said chancery suit, that said land might be sold, and their debt paid.
W. P. Lough also filed a petition in said cause, charging said conveyance to be fraudulent; claiming that he holds a note for fifty dollars, dated February 1, 1890, which was executed to him by said George G. Cleavenger, and remains unpaid ; charging that said sale was a sham and a fraud, of which his brothers had notice ; asking that said deed might be set aside, and that the note which he filed might be charged as a lien on said land. He makes the same allegations as to fraud as are. contained in the bill, asks that his petition may stand as an answer thereto, and says he believes the allegations of the bill are true.
Depositions were taken and filed by both the plaintiff and defendants in the cause. On the 14th day of November, 1890, the case of Josiah Bartlett v. George G. Cleavenger et al., First National Bank v. Same etc., on petition W. F.
The appellants assign as error the action of the court below in setting aside said deed, and, in order that we may arrive at a correct conclusion upon the questions raised by this assignment of error, we must look at the circumstances disclosed by the record as surrounding the parties at the time said conveyance was made by the defendant George G. Oleavenger to his brothers, Chasteen and Zadock.
The evidence shows that George G. Oleavenger was indebted to insolvency when said deed was made. Chasteen Oleavenger states in his deposition that he purchased the half of said land from his brother George, and was to pay for same two thousand and two dollars and fifty cents ; that he did pay him one thousand, two hundred and twenty nine dollars and seventy seven cents in cash, and assumed the payment of a note for five hundred dollars to Humphrey McDaniel; that the note was for one thousand dollars, and he was surety for M. S. Oleavenger and George G. Cieav-enger, and he assumed to pay George’s share, five hundred dollars, and that George G. owed him two hundred and seventy two dollars and seventy three cents; and when asked on cross-examination what said George Oleavenger owed him two hundred and seventy two dollars and seventy three cents for, he answered that some years before that he had let him have a couple of colts and some sheep. How many years this debt had been in existence he does not
It is a significant fact that Chasteen and Zadock Cleav-enger, although they are shown to be largely, indebted on their own account, and have been living by the side of their brother George for years, suddenly conclude to purchase his farm, although they are largely indebted themselves, and are compelled to borrow a large part of the money with which fo make the purchase. They did not need the farm, for the evidence shows that they allowed George G. to remain in possession and cultivate and use the land as he had been doing for years before. Chasteen says that he thereby collected an old debt of two hundred and seventy two dollars and seventy three cents from George, which he had owed him for years for some colts and sheep, and he assumed a debt of five hundred dollars to Humphrey McDaniel ; but the evidence also shows that he was already liable for said.-note, as surety for M. S. and George G. Cleavenger.
According to his own statement, by the payment of one thousand, two hundred and twenty nine dollars and seventy seven cents in cash, he became the owner of one half of said one hundred and seventy eight acres of land, collected a very doubtful debt of two hundred and seventy two dollars and seventy seven cents from his brother George, and assumed the payment of five hundred dollars that he was already liable for; and, when asked from what source he derived the money with which he made the cash payment, he stated that he had sold cattle for it, some about the 1st of October and some about the middle of the same month; that he had sold some to a Benjamin Fleming, some to Sam Phares, and some to a man he could not recall the name of; but "William Corder, when placed on the witness stand, testified that Chasteen Cleavenger did not sell his cattle to Sam Phares until after the 1st of November, and his impression was it was about the 19th of November, 1885; and Sam Phares states that it was between the 10th day of November and the 4th of December, 1885, and that he had not paid for these cattle before that time — so that said Chasteen was at least mistaken as to the source from which
Simon Johnson, another witness, states that Zadock Cleavenger borrowed three hundred and fifty dollars from him about the last of October, 1885 ; that he borrowed it on Thursday, and returned it on the Saturday evening following. Lemuel Marks, another witness,- states that he had a conversation with Chasteen Cleavenger during the summer of 1885, who told him that he had loaned A.-M. Talbott one thousand, five hundred dollars, and.that he was on some paper with him to Tom Bailey, and that it would take his loose.property to pay the money-lie was on. for said Talbott. ■ . .
These circumstances indicate clearly the-pecuniary condition of Chasteen and Zadock Cleavenger about the time of the purchase of this farm from their brother George. They were living on adjoining farms, and the evidence shows that they were intimately connected in business transactions, and were in the habit of indorsing and going security for each other when it became necessary to .raise money to meet the wants of their respective business undertakings ; and it would be fair to presume that they were fully acquainted with the financial condition of each other, if it did not appear affirmatively in the evidence that they were so acquainted, as it does.
Then we have the declaration of the parties themselves, as shown by the testimony of C. G. Cleavenger, who states that Chasteen told him that George had put his property
Said witness also states that about a week after this “Za-dock Cleavenger asked him if he had heard the news, and he replied to him he didn’t know whether he had or not. Zadock then said that people said he had purchased a farm, and, if he had, it was the cheapest one that ever he had purchased; that it had not cost him a five-cent piece, or that he did not suppose it ever would.”
Again, Minor S. Cleavenger deposes to a conversation had with Oh asteen Cleavenger on his stable lot, one or two days after this transaction took place, in which he says : “lie told me that he and Zadock had purchased George G. Cleavenger’s land; and he also stated he would not have done so, but George G. was badly involved by his own debts, and also security debts; that he was bound to make some arrangement, or his land would be taken away from him for his own debts and security debts; and this was not done for the purpose of defrauding the people out of George’s own debts, but for George to pay his security debts and keep the land, he could not do it.”
Bppa L. Bartlett, another witness, swears to a conversa
So in the case of Smith v. Yoke, 27 W.Va. 639, this Court held that, “where the decree sought to be reversed is based upon depositions which are so conflicting and of such a doubtful and'unsatisfactory character that different minds and different judges might reasonably disagree as to the facts proved by them or the proper conclusion to be deduced therefrom, the appellate court will decline to reverse the finding or the decree of the chancellor, although the testimony may be such that the appellate court might have pronounced a different decree if it had acted on the cause in the-first instance.” See also Doonan v. Glynn, 28 W. Va. 715; also, Prichard v. Evans, 31 W. Va. 137 (5 S. E. Rep. 461).
The court below, in the case at bar, after weighing and considering the evidence adduced by both parties, has seen proper to fix the seal of condemnation upon this transaction, and pronounce the deed of George G. Cleavenger to Chasteen and Zadock Cleavenger, dated October' 12, 1885, conveying said one hundred and seventy eight acres of land,'fraudulent and void as to the debts set forth in said bill and petitions; and under the rulings in the cases above referred to, in consideration of the character of the testimony, this Court would decline to reverse said decree. Yet, if the court below had seen proper to find otherwise than it did, I am of opinion that there are circumstances and indicia of fraud shown by the evidence that point so directly and clearly towards an intention on the part of
Among these I may mention the fact that possession of said tract of land was retained by the grantor after said pretended sale was made; not only so, but he actually rented out portions of said tract, and received the rent therefor, as shown by the deposition of Baily Jenkins, who rented a portion of the land, and paid his rent in a share of the crop to George G. Cleavenger.; and by John C. Cleaven-ger, who deposed that George G. Cleavenger lived on the place just as he always did, so far as he knew; and Minor S. Cleavenger states that George G; Cleavenger lives on the land, plows and raises corn, and mows the meadow's the same as he always did etc.
In Waite, Fraud. Conv. § 248, the author, after discussing the question at some length, says: “The prevalent policy is to consider the absence of a change of possession as prima facie or presumptive evidence of fraud; citing Crawford v. Kirksey, 55 Ala. 300; Mayer v. Clark, 40 Ala. 259 etc.
There can be no question that, where an insolvent debt- or conveys all of his real estate to his brothers, and claims that the’consideration was partly paid in old debts which the grantor owed said brother and partly by the assumption of .debts on which said brothers were surety for the grantor, and retains possession of said laud, farming it as his own, these circumstances should be given considerable weight in determining the bona fules of the transaction, and the burden would be upon the grantees to prove the payment of purchase-money.
Another circumstance which is proven by the deposition of Patrick F. Bartlett is that said Bartlett and Olaggert Cleavenger, in the fall of 1885, told George G. Cleavenger that they would buy said land, but would not buy it on any other terms than to assume-his liabilities, and apply the purchase-money on them until his debts were all assumed, and that they offered him twenty five or thirty dollars per acre. This was in August or September, shortly before he
Minor S. Oleavenger also swears that Ohasteen Cleaven-ger told him 'that- they had to estimate the land at something, and had estimated it at twenty two dollars and fifty cents per acre, and that he had a hard time to raise the money to make this arrangement, for he was afraid to call on some parties for money such a short time that they would suspicion that he was calling for the money for such a short time that they might see that he was holding George’s land under false pretense.
And, although Ohasteen coutradicts this evidence in his deposition, the evidence of T. 57. Curry shows that Chasteen Oleavenger borrowed three hundred and fifty dollars from him just before said sale, and paid it back right after the sale; and that Ohasteen told him he -was having some trouble, and had to raise so much money against a certain time, and that he would tell him sometime what he wanted it for; that that was not all the money he wanted; that he wanted more.
Simon Johnson swears that-Zadock Oleavenger, about the same time, borrowed three hundred and fifty dollars from him on Thursday and paid it back on Saturday.- They both seem to have borrowed money about the time of this transaction and returned it shortly afterwards.
These are some of the circumstances disclosed in this record which have a strong tendency to support the correctness of the decree complained of,'viewed in the light of the rulings of this Court in the case of Knight v. Capito, 23 W. Va. 639, where it is held that, “if an insolvent grantor, justly indebted to one of his creditors in a comparatively small amount, convey to him all of his property, or the greater portion thereof, in satisfaction of his debt, for a nominal consideration, falsely recited in the deed, and claimed by the gaanteeto have been in hand paid, equal in value to that of the property conveyed, but largely in excess of the debt actually due such creditor, aud he accepts the same, such deed, as to the other creditors of the grantor will be held to be fraudulent and void, as the necessary effect of such deed is to hinder, delay and defraud such other creditors; and the grantor and grantee will be held to have intended the necessary result of their wrongful act.”
In the case of Goshorn’s Ex’r v. Snodgrass, 17 W. Va. 717 (p’t 4 of syllabus) it is held that “a deduction of fraud may be made not only from deceptive assertions aud false representations, but from facts, incidents aud circumstances which may bo trivial in themselves, but may, in agiven caso be often decisive of a fraudulent design;” and in p’t 5, “although a deed be made for a valuable and adequate consideration, yet, if the intent of the grantor with which it is made be dishonest or unlawful, the deed will be deemed fraudulent if the grantee had notice of such intent.”
In Harden v. Wagner, 22 W. Va. 357 (fifth p’t of syllabus) it is held that, “if such conveyance be actually fraudulent and the intent concurred in by grantee as well as the grantor, it will be void as to creditors, however valuable
Applying these principles to the facts and circumstances disclosed in the record, our conclusion is that there is no error in the decree complained of, and the same must be affirmed with costs and damages to the appellee.
Affirmed.