44 W. Va. 651 | W. Va. | 1898
On the 10th day of July, 1896, the circuit court of Marion county, at the suit of Morgan Billiugsley, by decree declared null and void a certain deed executed by B. A. Fleming to Fannie Menear, as to certain debts of A. R. Menear, husband of the grantee. She appeals, and, among other errors, relies on her demurrer to the amended bil filed by plaintiff, and on which the relief was granted, and which is in words and figures as follows, to wit:. “To the Honorable J. M. Hagans, Judge of the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia: Humbly complaining, showeth unto your honor your orator, Morgan Billingsley, that your orator is a citizen of said county; that some time prior to the 22d day of November, 1890, one Asberry R. Menear, of said county, became and was indebted to the firm of Cunningham & Tennant for merchandise in the sum of $76.56, and the said debt so continued until the said 22d day of November, 1890, when Robert Davis, as trustee for the said firm of Cunningham & Tennant, obtained a judgment for the amount of the said debt, together with legal interest thereon until paid, and the costs of the proceedings to recover said judgment, which costs amounted to the sum of $3.65; that the aforesaid judgment was rendered by R. L. Phillips, then a justice of the peace in and for said county; that on the 27th day of February, 1891, an execution was issued upon said judgment, which was placed in the hands of R. E. Morgan, a constable of said county, who, on the 5th day of May, 1891, returned the same to the said justice, with the in-dorsement thereon made, ‘Execution returned no property found, May 5th, 1891. R. E. Morgan, C. M. C. ’ A transcript of said judgment and a copy of said execution has been heretofore filed in this cause, marked Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B,’ and prayed to be taken, read, and considered as a part of this bill. Your orator would further show that the said firm of Cunningham & Tennant and Robert Davis, as trustee -for said firm, by Harry G. Linn, Esq., their
As will be seen by an inspection of the bill, Morgan Bil-lingsley, as assignee of B. H. Fleming, grantor in the deed to Fannie Menear, attacks such deed as having been “made and caused to be made” with the intent to delay, hinder, and defraud the creditors of A. R. Menear, and especially the plaintiff. The grantor can take no advantage of or set up his own fraud to avoid his -conveyance, nor can his assignee or any one claiming under him. Bump, Fraud. Conv. §§ 432, 433. Such conduct is contrary to both equity and morality, and infringes the rule that he who comes into equity must have clean hands and a conscience void of offense. Nor is it ordinarily proper to unite claims attacking a deed as fraudulent with a suit to enforce unpaid purchase money, for the reason that the claims are conflicting; for, if the deed be fraudulent, the purchase money must be postponed to the attacking debts. And the fact that the two sets of claims have been transferred to a single assignee makes no difference, as a bill filed for their enforcement necessarily raises a conflict between the rights of the assignors, which would render the suit multifarious and anomalous. - The assignor of the purchase money would be compelled to take issue with his own assignee as to the question of fraud, and thus become,
The bill further alleges that A. R. Menear improved the property, and, in doing so, incurred a debt of two hundred and five dollars to Oliver J. Fleming, for which Fannie Menear executed a note secured by a trust lien on the property, which note has been assigned to and is owned by plaintiff, and that such improvements were put on such property in fraud of plaintiff’s rights. He thus again attacks himself for fraud. There is no allegation showing the money value of the improvements, or, indeed, that they exceeded the sum of two hundred and five dollars, for which Fannie Menear gave her note, and hence the bill is fatally defective in this respect. The facts alleged, if true, fail to show fraud or a gift sufficient to justify the interference of a court of equity. The bill is sufficient for the enforcement of the purchase money and the trust lien, but as to all other matters is demurrable. The circuit court should therefore have sustained the defendant Fannie Me-near’s demurrer to the extent indicated, and allowed the plaintiff to have amended his bill if he chose to do so, or to have a decree only for his purchase money and trust liens. Morgan v. Morgan, 42 W. Va. 542, (26 S. E. 294). It, however, overruled the demurrer, and proceeded on this bill to hold the deed to be fraudulent, null, and void as to all the debts of A. R. Menear, and yet decreed the purchase money to be the first lien in priority; thus, in effect, reaching a contradictory conclusion. For this reason, the decree complained of will be reversed, the demurrer to the
Reversed„