113 Neb. 414 | Neb. | 1925
This is an action in the nature of a creditor’s bill seeking' to subject 678 acres of land, situated in Lancaster county, the title to which is now standing in the name of Lafayette P. Barnes, to the payment of three judgments against Theodore F. Barnes, aggregating about $2,200, and the interest thereon and costs. The judgments were transcripted to the district court for Lancaster county. Having become dormant they were revived. After the revivor, execution was issued thereon and “returned wholly unsatisfied.” The
There is set up as a defense the fact that Theodore F. Barnes has been adjudged a bankrupt; that these judgments were listed among his liabilities; but, as the petition in this case was filed more than four months before the dis
There are a number of transactions antedating the deed which is attacked in plaintiff’s petition, and as to which proof was offered, which cannot affect the facts upon which the decision in this case must rest and they will not therefore receive further comment.
The deed sought to be set aside is dated January 24, 1916. It was recorded on November 6, 1916. The petition was filed in this case on August 9, 1921, more than four years after the record of the deed. The defendants in their answer plead the statute of limitations. , The plaintiff neither by plea nor proof attempts to avoid the effect of the statute, and under the rule heretofore announced by this court the plaintiff must fail in this action. Where the statute of limitations is pleaded, the plaintiff, to avoid the effect thereof, must aver and prove that the fraud was not discovered immediately and the right to sue did not accrue at once, but this will not be presumed: The burden is upon the plaintiff to make it appear by proper averment. Newman Grove State Bank v. Linderholm, 68 Neb. 364; Weckerly v. Taylor, 74 Neb. 84; Westervelt v. Filter, 2 Neb. (Unof.) 731; State Bank of Pender v. Frey, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 83. A reading of the record discloses that at the time of the conveyance complained of these judgments were dormant; that no one was seeking to enforce them; that the grantee made the existing incumbrances, and additional indebtedness of his father’s, his, the grantee’s, personal obligation; that the consideration stated in the deed was, even at the time of the trial, the full value of the land; that the grantee had no knowledge of the existence of the judgments or other indebtedness of' his father and' codefendant Theodore F. Barnes; and that the conveyance was a good faith trans-action without fraudulent intent on the part of the grantee and for full value. The decree of the district court is therefore reversed and the action dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
Note—See Fraudulent Conveyances, 27 C. J. sec. 290.