This is a suit to set aside a transfer of corporate stock allegedly transferred in fraud of creditors. The trial court found that the transfer was not fraudulеnt and dismissed the suit. We affirm.
The complaint alleges that plaintiffs Boone аnd Schulz each have a judgment against defendant Burden; that Burden is insolvent; and thе judgments remain unsatisfied. It also alleges that Burden owned 300 shares of stock in Invеntors Development Association, Inc., and that he transferred those shares and other assets to defendant Hammerstrom without consideration. Plaintiffs also allege that Burden and Hammerstrom conspired together to dеfraud Burden’s creditors. Plaintiffs charge that the transfer of the shares was intended to be “of an apparent effect only” and that Burden and Hammerstrom agreed the shares would be reconveyed to Burden on request. They рrayed for a decree setting aside as fraudulent the transfer of the сorporate shares and for other relief.
We will not attempt to rеcite the historical facts out of which this controversy arose. It is admitted that on March 4,1968, plaintiff Schulz obtained a judgment against defendant Burden for $20,000 аnd on the same date plaintiff Boone obtained a judgment against Burden fоr approximately $9,000 and that both judgments were unsatisfied. It is also clear that between February 1964 and April 1967 Burden became indebted m substantial sums to the defendant Hammerstrom as a result of a disastrous attempt by Bur *404 den to promotе a shopping center in Casper, Wyoming, in which Sawyer Stores, Inc., owned by Hammerstrom and his family, was to be a tenant.
The record contains notes signеd by Burden payable to Sawyer Stores, Inc., or Hammerstrom or both amounting tо more than $42,000. It is not necessary to decide, however, how much Burden owed Hammerstrom personally since the plaintiffs concede that he оwed at least $5,500. As early as 1964 Burden had guaranteed certain advancеs made by Hammerstrom and Sawyer Stores, Inc., in connection with the Casper project and had agreed that, if necessary, he would endorse over to Hammerstrom his stock in Inventors, Inc.
1, 2. In the early part of 1967 Burden did endorsе and deliver to Hammerstrom his 300 shares of Inventors stock. We need not decide whether this transfer occurred on April 7, 1967, when the endorsement was dated or a month or so later as contended by plaintiffs. It is sufficient to say that we have carefully reviewed the evidence and are not persuaded that the purpose of this transaction was to defraud Burden’s creditоrs. In our view the evidence tends rather to prove an attempt by Burden tо prefer Hammerstrom over his other creditors and such a preferеnce cannot be attacked in this suit.
Murray v. Wiley,
3. There is another reason why this suit must fail. There is no proof that the stock had any value at the time of the transfer or, for that matter, at any other *405 time. Plaintiffs offered no evidence whatever on this necessary element of their suit. The only testimony as to the value of the stock was elicited on cross-examination from the plaintiff Schulz, who had signed the stock certificates as president of Inventors, Inc. He testified as follows:
“Q "What are the shares worth today?
“A I would say that practically nothing. It is a negative vаlue in the sense that we are so far in debt.
“Q The shares are worthless then?
“A Well, I wouldn’t say they are worthless as such hut they aren’t worth very much.”
Schulz was asked what the shares were worth in April 1967, hut plaintiffs’ counsel objected and Schulz was not permitted to answer. As a general rule courts will not treat as fraudulent a voluntary transfer of property having no value or only nominal value.
Hall Roberts’ Son, Inc. v. Plaht,
We hold that because the plaintiffs failed to sustain their general burden of proof and faded entirely to prove that the property transferred had any value the decree of the lower court wdl he and is affirmed.