17 Iowa 498 | Iowa | 1864
The answer to the objection is obvious. The notice having been properly served upon the attorneys of record of the parties who moved to suppress it, they could not object to the deposition because some one else had not been notified.
Were they so made and received? From tbe pleadings and evidence tbe following facts, most of tbem being badges or signs of fraud, are satisfactorily shown:
1. That John M., tbe father, was in greatly embarrassed circumstances, and was unable to pay bis debts. He had been, or was about to be, pressed by bis creditors. These facts are' admitted in his answer, and be there further admits “ that be was compelled to sell bis property at private sale, or have it sacrificed at forced sale.” There were, then, in the very nature and circumstances of bis situation, strong motives to make a sham or fraudulent transfer of his estate. That these motives prevailed, and that tbe transfer was of this kind, further,appears —
2. By the time when it was made. It was made on the same day that Davis and Berger brought their suits. If it was not, as in Twyne's case, made 'pending suit, it was made in anticipation of actions being brought. There is no evidence to show that Davis and Berger had knowledge of the conveyance to the sons when they brought suit, or that they brought these actions in consequence of any information of this character. There is evidence tending to show that tbe conveyance in question was made after the service of notice. This point, in view of tbe evidence, is not controllingly material, and need not detain us.
8. The nature and purposes of the transfer are also evidenced by tbe amount of property conveyed. It comprised all of his estate, or substantially all, both real and personal. Tbe design of the parties is further shown —
4. By the relationship between them, and the pecuniary circumstances and legal irresponsibility of the purchasers. They were his sons. Tbe professed consideration for the
5. Another consideration of much weight is, that not
Perhaps no one of the badges or signs of fraud above mentioned would singly have been sufficientbut their united effect, unexplained, is to satisfy us that the sale by the father was a mock transfer, or, at least, one made to delay creditors, and that the land is held by the plaintiffs and the other sons subject to the just claims of Davis and Berger.
Affirmed.