Minneapolis Stock-Yards & Packing Co. v. Halonen
57 N.W. 1135
Minn.
1894
Check Treatment
Collins, J.

This action was brought to subject certain real property in St. Louis county to the paymеnt of a judgment entered and docketed in plaintiff’s favor against two ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‍of these defendаnts, John Halonen and Peter Peterson, December 31, 1892, for about $1,100. The indebtedness on which thе judgmént was obtained, which seems *470to have been a running account, was incurred between Aрril 30 and October 16, 1892. A part of it was existing August 29th of that year, and on that day said debtors were indebted to plaintiff in a sum exceeding $1,100. The defendant Olaf Halonen was the brother of John, and dеfendant Ulrika Halonen was then the wife of said John. On that day, and for some time prior thereto, John Halonen was and had been the owner in fee of the real property invоlved, and on that day he conveyed by warranty deed — his wife, Ulrika., joining therein — all of said property, the same being all the real property owned by him in said county; the considerаtion ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‍recited in the deed being $2,000. Two days later — August 31st — said Olaf Halonen (his wife joining) made, executed, and delivered a warranty deed, whereby, for an expressed consideration of $2,200, they conveyed all of said real estate to said Ulrika Halonen. This deed was reсorded on the same day, August 31st, but the deed in which Olaf Halonen was named as grantee was not placed upon record until September 12th. The title of record remained in said Ulrika at the commencement of this action. Other circumstances attending and which served to characterize the transaction, not necessary to detail, were shown upon the trial.

It is very evident that the object of these conveyances was to transfеr the record title to this property from the husband to the wife. By means of these deeds thе parties sought to do by indirection what the statutes of this state would not permit to be aсcomplished by direct means; that is, by a conveyance in which the husband was the grantor and the wife the grantee. There was no testimony whatsoever, and no finding, as to what the reаl consideration was for either of these deeds. There was no attempt to exрlain the transaction, or to show what was paid by either Olaif, the brother, ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‍or Ulrika, the wife. The defendants rested their case wholly upon the bare introduction of the deeds in evidеnce, upon the assumption that, as they were under seal, they were presumed to hаve been executed and delivered for a valuable consideration, and that it wаs incumbent upon the plaintiff to overcome this presumption by evidence. Evidently the triаl court regarded this view of the law as correct, but it was in error. 1878 G. S. ch. 69, § 4, provides that when the rights of creditors come in question the wife shall be held to have notice of the contracts and debts of her hus*471band as fully as if a party thereto. Although, in this case, the wife received a conveyance of the property with knowledge of her husband’s indebtedness, bеcause of the statute, it may not follow that she received it with knowledge of a fraudulеnt intent on his part. But it is well settled that such is the community of interest ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‍between husband and wife, and purсhases and conveyances are so often made as a cover for a debtor’s property, are so. frequently resorted to for the purpose of withdrawing his prоperty from the reach of his creditors and preserving it for his own use, and furnish such temptations for fraud, that they require close scrutiny.

In a contest between the wife and the creditоrs of a husband there is, and there should be, a presumption against her which she must overcome by affirmative proof. Such has always been the rule ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‍of the common law, and the rule continues, though statutes have modified and changed the relations which at common law existed between husband and wife as to the property of the latter. Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580. Without going any further than is necessary for a determination of this case, we are of the opinion that whеre a judgment is upon a claim which accrued prior to a conveyance tо his wife of property belonging to the debtor husband, which property the creditors arе trying to reach, the burden of proof is upon the wife to show the purchase by clear and satisfactory evidence, and that it was for a valuable consideration, pаid by her, or by some one in her behalf. Burt v. Timmons, 29 W. Va. 451, (2 S. E. 780;) Frank v. King, 121 Ill. 250, (12 N. E. 720;) Adams v. Edgerton, 48 Ark. 419, (3 S. W. 628;) Brickley v. Walker, 68 Wis. 563, (32 N. W. 773;) Peeler v. Peeler, 109 N. C. 628, (14 S. E. 59;) Strong v. Lawrence, 58 Iowa 56, (12 N. W. 74.) See, also, Kaine v. Weigley, 22 Pa. St. 179.

It was incumbent upon the defendant Ulrika to show the real consideration for these conveyances.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and a new trial ordered.

(Opinion published 57 N. W. Rep. 1136.)