88 Mo. 44 | Mo. | 1885
This suit is to set aside a conveyance of land made by Charles Gr. Smith to his -brother, Abram P. Smith, on the fifteenth of June, 1873. The land conveyed was all the land owned by said Charles Gr., and lay in Andrew county, Missouri. The plaintiffs are creditors of said Charles, who died in February, 1876. The circuit court rendered a judgment setting aside the conveyance, from which defendant, Abram Smith, has appealed to this court. The plaintiff’s demands allowed against the estate aggregate about $1,300, and the land in controversy, at the date of the conveyance, was worth between seven and eight thousand dollars. The debts of C. G. Smith at the time of the conveyance to his brother, excluding the debt to the latter, were inconsiderable compared with the value of the land conveyed, and the personal proy»erty owned by him. The petition charges that, at the time of the conveyance, C. G. Smith was insolvent. That the conveyance to Abram was without consideration, and made with intent to defraud the creditors of C. G. If the debt claimed by Abram be excluded from C. G.’s liabilities, the testimony shows that he was not insolvent, owing less than three thousand dollars, and owning property worth between ten thousand and eleven thousand dollars.
Upon these undisputed facts it is difficult to conceive a motive for the conveyance, inconsistent with good faith. It'is not alleged that it was made to enable the grantor to defraud subsequent creditors, and the debts ■subsequently contracted by the grantor are not of a magnitude to warrant such an imputation. But, aside from -all this, we think that the testimony establishes the bona Jides of the transaction.
It will be observed that Charles had a large family, thirteen or fourteen children, and was in an embarrassed condition, including in his indebtedness what he owed the defendant. Abram had been assisting him, advancing him money for the purchase of cattle, and dividing’ the profits with him, and it is by no means strange that, instead of crediting that small balance upon his large ■ claims against his brother, he remitted it to him. He felt that what Charles owed him was safe, for he testifies that he did not know the extent of his indebtedness to others, and, if he had, it was not of an amount to make him uneasy. In 1873, at the instance of Charles, he took ■the land in payment of his debt. No witness contradicts Abram Smith as to any fact testified to by him, while, as to nearly every fact stated by him, he is corroborated by other disinterested witnesses. There is no evidence of any. fraudulent intent on the part of Charles, except his declarations to his wife and children, and the-most charitable view of their testimony is to admit that C. Gr. Smith made the statement testified' to by them but the record discloses a motive for his concealment from them of the amount of his indebtedness to Abram. " One of the sons testifies that in a conversation between his parents, his mother was fretting, and his father told her that “by being saving it would not belong before she could get it back again ’ ’