102 Neb. 658 | Neb. | 1918
Plaintiffs began this action in the district court for Harlan county to set. aside certain conveyances of land from Peter Bergquist to his wife, on the ground' that they were made without consideration ■ and to defraud creditors. Plaintiffs’ petition was dismissed, and they appeal.
Peter Bergquist died intestate in Harlan county May 6, 1914. Anna C. Bergquist, his widow, and his seven children, some of whom are minors, are defendants, and they are his only heirs at law. Medora Bergquist, a daughter, was appointed and qualified as administratrix of the estate.
Section 7569, Rev. St. 1913, provides: “Within four years, * * * an action for relief on the ground of fraud” shall be commenced. There is an exception noted in the statute, but plaintiffs’ claim does not come within that exception. So that as to the conveyance by Peter Bergquist to his wife on December 1, 1908, the present action is barred by the. statute of limitations, the .action in Harlan county having been commenced more than four years after the conveyance was made that is- complained of. The timber culture tract conveyance of October 29, 1913, was not yet patented when the debt sued on was contracted, but it does not appear whether the final certificate was issued to Bergquist
It is also shown that the separate estate of Mrs. Bergquist consisted in part of $2,500 or $3,000 that she received from her father’s estate, and that she paid this money to her husband on the land. It sufficiently ap1 ears too that Mrs. Bergquist had no knowledge of plaintiffs’ claim that would charge her with participation in or knowledge of any-alleged fraud with respect to either of the conveyances at the time when they were executed. But as this is an equity case, we have examined the evidence and tried the case de novo. From this examination we find that there is ample testimony to support the judgment of the district court, and we have reached the same conclusion announced by that court.
Other questions are raised and argued in the briefs that we do not find it necessary to decide. Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.