32 U.S. 348 | SCOTUS | 1833
HOLLINGSWORTH MAGNIAC AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR
v.
JOHN R. THOMPSON.
Supreme Court of United States.
*377 The case was argued by Mr C.J. Ingersoll for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr Binney for the defendant.
*389 Mr Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error to the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania. The original action was a feigned issue between the plaintiffs, who are creditors, and the defendant, to try the question, whether he is able to pay the debt due to them; and this depends upon the validity of certain articles of settlement, made in contemplation of a marriage between the defendant and Miss Annis Stockton, daughter of the late Richard *390 Stockton, Esq. stated in the case. The verdict in the court below was for the defendant; and judgment having been rendered thereon accordingly, the present writ of error is brought to revise that judgment, upon a bill of exceptions taken to the charge of the court at the trial.
The whole charge of the court is spread upon the record (a practice which this court have uniformly discountenanced, and which, we trust, a rule made at the last term will effectually suppress); and the question now is, whether that charge contains any erroneous statement of the law; for as to the comments of the court upon the evidence, it is almost unnecessary to say, after what was said by this court in Carver v. Jackson, 4 Peters's Reports, 80, 81, that we have nothing to do with them. In examining the charge for the purpose of ascertaining its correctness in point of law, the whole scope and bearing of it must be taken together. It is wholly inadmissible to take up single and detached passages, and to decide upon them without attending to the context, or without incorporating such qualifications and explanations as naturally flow from the language of other parts of the charge. In short, we are to construe the whole as it must have been understood, both by the court and the jury, at the time when it was delivered.
The material facts are as follows: The plaintiffs and the defendant were resident merchants in China; and the defendant left it in March 1825 to visit America. In the summer of that year he paid his addresses to Miss Stockton, then resident with her father in New Jersey, by whom his addresses were accepted; and in contemplation of marriage on the 19th of December of the same year the articles of marriage settlement referred to were executed. They purport to be articles of agreement and covenant between the defendant of the first part, Miss Annis Stockton of the second part, and Richard Stockton, father and trustee of Miss Stockton, of the third part. By these articles, after reciting the intended marriage, and that Richard Stockton, the father, had promised to give a certain lot of land (described in the articles) to his daughter, upon which the defendant, Thompson, had begun to build a house, it is stated that R. Stockton covenants, in consideration of the *391 said marriage, and his love and affection for his daughter, that from the time of the marriage he will stand seised of the lot and premises in trust to permit the defendant and Annis his wife to live in and occupy the same; and if they do not think proper so to do, then to let out the premises on lease, and receive the rents and profits and pay over the same to the said Annis during the joint lives of herself and her husband (the defendant); if the defendant should survive his said wife and have issue by her, then in trust to permit him during his life to inhabit and occupy the premises, if he should elect so to do, and to pay over the rents and profits to him for the support of himself and his family, without his (the defendant's) being accountable therefor; and after his death, in trust for the child or children of the marriage in equal shares as tenants in common; and if no children, then upon the death of either the husband or the wife, to convey the premises to the survivor in fee simple. By the same instrument the defendant covenants, that if the marriage should take effect, and in consideration thereof, he will, with all convenient speed, build and furnish the house in a suitable manner, as he shall judge fit and proper, and that the erections, improvements and furniture shall be subject to and included in the trusts. And further, that he will, in the space of a year from the marriage, place out at good security, in stock or otherwise, the sum of forty thousand dollars, and hand over and assign the evidences thereof to the trustee, who shall hold the same in trust to receive the interest, profits and dividends thereof for the wife, during the joint lives of herself and her husband. And if she should die before her husband, and there should be issue of the marriage, then in trust to receive the interest, profits and dividends, and pay the same to the husband during his life, for the support and maintenance of himself and children, without any account, and after his death, in trust for the children of the marriage. A similar provision is made in case of the survivorship of the wife; and if no children, then the trustee is to assign and deliver the securities and moneys remaining due to the survivor, to his or her own use.
Such are the most material clauses of the marriage articles. Before the execution of them, the defendant made out a written *392 statement of his pecuniary circumstances, in which he states that he owes no personal debts except to a small amount, in the common course of business; that he is surety for his father in a bottomry bond to Messrs Schott and Lippincott, in the penal sum of two hundred thousand dollars, upon which there was a pledge of goods, supposed to be sufficient to discharge the bond; and if any loss should accrue, it could not be more than twenty thousand dollars, and that he considered himself worth that amount, if not more, in addition to the sum proposed to be settled.
From the testimony in the case, which is stated in the charge, it appears that the marriage was consummated; that the defendant built the house on the lot mentioned in the articles at an expense of thirteen thousand dollars, and furnished it at the expense of five thousand dollars, but invested no part of the forty thousand dollars during the life of the trustee. It also appears, that at the time of executing the articles, he was worth about eighty or ninety thousand dollars in money and personal property; that his agent in China, in November and December 1825, borrowed of the plaintiffs sixty-three thousand dollars on the pledge and security of property of the invoice value of eighty-six thousand dollars and upwards, on the credit of the defendant, but entirely for the use of the defendant's father, in order to complete the cargoes of his ships, then at Canton short of funds. The property arrived at a losing market, and the debt now due to the plaintiffs by the defendant, grew out of their transactions, his father having failed on the 19th of November 1825; but the existence of the loan contracted with the plaintiffs, was not known to the defendant (though fully authorized to be made, if necessary) until the spring of 1826.
The marriage articles were never recorded in New Jersey, where the land lies, until May 1830, after the death of the trustee. In September 1829, shortly before the plaintiffs obtained a judgment for either debt against the defendant, the defendant delivered over to captain Robert Stockton, the son of the trustee, who succeeded him in the trust, securities to the amount of nine thousand five hundred dollars on account of the sum to be invested pursuant to the marriage articles.
*393 Such are the material facts which appeared at the trial; and the question was, whether, under all the circumstances, the marriage articles were void as a fraud upon creditors. With reference to this point, the learned judge who delivered the charge to the jury, made, among others, the following remarks. "To taint a transaction with fraud, both parties must concur in the illegal design. It is not enough to prove fraud in the debtor. He may lawfully sell his property, with the direct intention of defrauding his creditors, or prefer one creditor to another. But, unless the purchaser or preferred creditor receives the property with the same fraudulent design, the contract is valid against other creditors or purchasers, who may be injured by the transaction." "Before you can pronounce this marriage agreement void and inoperative on the ground of actual fraud, you must be satisfied, not only that the defendant made it with design to defraud his creditors, but also that Mrs Thompson, and her father and trustee, Mr Richard Stockton, participated and concurred in the fraud intended. If they were innocent of the combination, it would be harsh and cruel in the extreme to visit on her the serious consequences of her intended husband's acts, and as inconsistent with law as justice." "The deeds, gifts, grants or other contracts, which the law avoids, are those made with intent to defraud, hinder, delay or injure creditors; and in order to avoid them, both the party giving and the party receiving must participate in the fraud." "The words of the law (the statute of 13 Elizabeth, ch. 5), require that both parties must concur in the fraud in order to bring the same within the provisions."
Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine, that to make an antenuptial settlement void, as a fraud upon creditors, it is necessary that both parties should concur in, or have cognizance of the intended fraud. If the settler alone intend a fraud, and the other party have no notice of it, but is innocent of it, she is not, and cannot be affected by it. Marriage, in contemplation of the law, is not only a valuable consideration to support such a settlement, but is a consideration of the highest value; and from motives of the soundest policy is upheld with a steady resolution. The *394 husband and wife, parties to such a contract, are therefore deemed in the highest sense purchasers for a valuable consideration; and so that it is bona fide, and without notice of fraud, brought home to both sides, it becomes unimpeachable by creditors. Fraud may be imputable to the parties, either by direct co-operation in the original design at the time of its concoction, or by constructive co-operation from notice of it, and carrying the design, after such notice, into execution.
The argument at the bar admits these principles to be incontrovertible. But it is supposed by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, that the charge contains a different and broader doctrine; that it requires active co-operation, pre-concert and participation in the original design of fraud; and that notice of it is not sufficient to avoid the settlement, although all the parties, after such notice, proceed to execute it.
It appears to us that this is an entirely erroneous view of the scope and reasoning of the charge, even in the passages above cited. But taking them in connexion with other passages in the same charge, it is beyond doubt that no such distinction was in the mind of the court, or was in fact uttered to the jury. The language of the charge has reference to the actual posture of the case before the court, and not to any other possible state of facts. The case was not of a settlement already made and executed by the settler alone, with a fraudulent intent, to which settlement the wife or her trustee were not contemplated to be executing parties, and which was, after notice of the intent, accepted by them; in which the effect of notice might have been the very hinge of the cause. But the case was of marriage articles about to be executed by all the parties upon negotiations then had between them for that purpose; and of course, if there was a fraudulent design, known to all the parties at the time, the very execution of the articles made them all equally participators, and parties to the fraud. It necessarily involved combination, and participation, and pre-concert. It was to this posture of facts that the reasoning of the charge was addressed; and it met and stated the law truly, as applicable to them. Notice under such circumstances, necessarily included participation in the fraud. It was not possible that the wife and her trustee, with notice of an intended fraud on *395 the part of her husband, could execute the instrument without being, in the sense of the law, participes delicti.
But the charge does, in various other passages, distinctly point out to the jury the very doctrine which the plaintiffs in error assume as the basis of their argument, and for which they contend. Thus, in commenting upon the different classes of conveyances, to which the statute of 13 Elizabeth is applicable, it is observed, that all conveyances are valid and excepted, which are "for a valuable consideration, in good faith, without notice by the person receiving the conveyance of any fraud, covin or collusion by the grantor to defraud his creditors." Again "the consideration being valuable, if the contract, whether executed or executory, is made in good faith, with one having no notice or knowledge of any fraud, covin or collusion to defraud creditors, performance may be enforced or voluntarily made, and the contract carried into execution at any time, either in the whole or in part, as is in the power of the party." Again, "it is the opinion of the court, that the evidence in this case brings the marriage contract within the sixth section of the law (the act of 13 Elizabeth), excepting it from the operation of the first section; unless you shall find that it was made, not bona fide, or with notice or knowledge of a fraud in John R. Thompson in entering into it, brought home to his intended wife, and that Thompson actually entered into it with such fraudulent, covinous and collusive intention." And, without dwelling on other passages equally expressive, it is added in the very close of the charge, "we conclude, then, with instructing you, that a settlement made before marriage, makes the intended wife a purchaser for a valuable consideration; if agreed to be made, she is a creditor, and protected in the enjoyment of the thing settled, and entitled to the means of enforcing what is executory, if the transaction was bona fide and without notice or fraud." That these directions are correct in point of law, cannot admit of doubt; and that they cover the whole ground asserted in the argument for the plaintiffs, seems equally undeniable. We may then dismiss any further commentary on this part of the case.
The next objection is, to the charge of the court in regard to the furniture. The court were requested to charge the jury *396 that the expenditure of five thousand dollars in furnishing the house was, per se, fraudulent. The court refused so to do, stating, "that furniture is part of the marriage contract, to be provided by Thompson, in a suitable manner, as he should think fit. He had a discretion which he might exercise in a reasonable manner, according to their station and associations in life, proportioned to the kind of house and extent of income; the trustee or wife could not, in law or equity, compel Thompson to furnish it extravagantly, or at useless and wanton expense; and if he should do it voluntarily, it would not be within the true spirit and meaning of the marriage articles, and might be deemed a legal fraud on creditors as to the excess. But before we can say that it is a fraud in law to expend five thousand dollars in furnishing a house costing thirteen thousand dollars, and the establishment to be supported by the income of an investment of forty thousand dollars in productive funds; we must be satisfied that it is, at the first blush, an extravagant and unwarranted expenditure under all the circumstances in evidence, and to an extent indicating some fraudulent or other motive unconnected with the fair execution of the contract, of which we are not satisfied."
It is difficult to perceive any error in this direction; and it was going quite as far in favour of the plaintiffs in error as the law would warrant; for the change of circumstances of the defendant made no difference in his obligations to perform the stipulations of the marriage articles. The court might well have refused to give the instruction without any explanation, for it was asking them to decide, as matter of law, what was clearly matter of fact. The argument at the bar has indeed insisted that the court misunderstood the object and request of the counsel; but there is no evidence of that on the record, and certainly it is not to be presumed.
The next objection is to the charge of the court respecting the delivery of the notes to Captain Robert Stockton, in September 1829. The court were requested to charge the jury, that the delivery of these notes to Captain Stockton was a fraud. The court directed the jury that "if it was done in order to comply, in part, with the agreement, it was not so. If it was colourable, made with the intention of covering and concealing *397 so much, under pretence of the marriage articles, for Thompson's use, and so received by the trustee, it was legally fraudulent as to creditors; but if delivered with such intention, and not so accepted, then Captain Stockton might not only fairly apply it to the trust fund, but was bound so to do. Though it may have been done on the eve of the judgment confessed in New Jersey, that would make no difference; it being to carry into effect the agreement of December 1825."
We cannot perceive any error in this part of the charge. The wife became a purchaser and creditor of her husband, in virtue of the marriage articles; and if the delivery of the notes was made in part performance of these articles, bona fide, and without fraud, it was a discharge of a moral as well as of a legal duty. Among creditors equally meritorious, a debtor may conscientiously prefer one to another; and it can make no difference that the preferred creditor is his wife.
The remaining objection is, that the marriage articles are inoperative and void, not having been recorded within the time prescribed by the laws of New Jersey for the registration of conveyances. To this objection several answers may be given, each of which is equally conclusive against the plaintiffs in error. In the first place, marriage articles or settlements, as such, are not required by the laws of New Jersey to be recorded at all, but only conveyances of real estate; and as to conveyances of real estate, the omission to record them, avoids them only as to purchasers and creditors, leaving them in full force between the parties. This is the express provision of the statute of New Jersey of 1820[(a)]: so that, notwithstanding the non-registration, the articles were good between the parties. In the next place, as to the personal estate, covenanted on the part of the defendant to be settled on his wife, whether furniture or money, it is clear that the non-registration of the articles could produce no effect whatever. If the conveyance was free of fraud, it was as to the personal estate completely valid, even against creditors. In the next place, as to the real estate covered by the articles, whether these articles are treated as an actual conveyance, or as an executory contract, it is clear, that *398 except as to the creditors of the grantor, Mr Stockton, they were completely valid, and operative. Viewed as a conveyance, or as a contract for a conveyance, the husband could not, consistently with the avowed trusts, take any legal estate or executed use in the real estate. The grantor necessarily remained the legal owner, in order to effectuate the trusts of the settlement; and the husband could entitle himself to the benefit of the trusts provided in his favour, only in the events and upon the contingencies which are therein stated. He had no equitable interest therein capable of a present appropriation by his creditors. In every view of the circumstances, it is therefore clear, that the non-registration of the articles does not touch the plaintiffs' right; and the court were correct in their instruction to the jury, "that the marriage contract is not void for want of being recorded in time."
Upon the whole, it is the unanimous opinion of the court that the judgment of the circuit court ought to be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
NOTES
[(a)] See the act of 1820. Laws of New Jersey, edition of 1821, p. 747.