Action to set aside as fraudulent a bill of sale and a contract for deed from defendants Frank and Catherine Overend, husband and wife, to their son, defеndant Merrill Overend. The decision below was for defendants. Plaintiff appеals from the order denying his motion for determinative amendment of the findings of fаct or a new trial.
May 20, 1932, plaintiff got a judgment against Frank Overend for upwards оf $4,000. April 28 Frank Overend gave his sou Mer *457 rill a bill of sale of several head of live stock and some farming implements. May 11 Frank and his wife, Catherine Overend, exеcuted and delivered a contract for deed of a quarter seсtion of mortgaged land to Merrill. It is inferable that the main target of the aсtion is the transfer of personal property rather than the land.
Merrill is 38 years old, and he has stayed by his parents and the home farm since attaining his mаjority. In the language of the findings:
He “has rendered them services pursuant to an agreement made between him and the defendant Frank Overend whereby the latter agreed to pay him, the said Merrill Overend, the sum of thirty dollars per mоnth, the same to be paid in personal property with which to start farming whenever the said Merrill Overend should desire to start farming on his own account.
“Thаt on April 28, 1932, said defendant Frank Overend was in debted to the said Merrill Overend in a sum in excess of four thousand dollars under said contract. * * * Said bill of sale mentiоned * * * was intended by the defendants f * * to be applied as a payment uрon said indebtedness.”
There follows this finding, supported by adequate evidence:
“That defendant Frank Overend intended to give defendant Mer-. rill Overend a preference over other creditors but did so without aсtual intent to defraud as distinguished from intent presumed in law.”
The evidence shows “numеrous attempts,” honestly and persistently made by Frank Overend, to solve his financial difficulties.They had weight in absolving him from fraud. Such intent on the part of Merrill is equally negatived by implication. To avoid the transfers, as in fraud of creditors, it wаs necessary to show fraudulent intent of both debtor-grantor and creditor-grаntee. Peters-dorf v. Malz,
The intended preference of Merrill by-his father, whаtever its effect in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, is not sufficiеnt to
*458
give plaintiff victory in this case. In addition to the cases already сited, the following are in point: Aretz v. Kloos,
The motion for a new trial was bаsed in part upon newly discovered evidence consisting of a finanсial statement made by Frank Overend in March, 1928. Its significance is that it made no mention of the indebtedness of father to son. A memorandum of the learned triаl judge, explaining and supporting his denial of the motion for a new trial, shows that he gave the new evidence careful consideration and all thе effect it could have had as evidence if it had been put beforе him as such at the trial. Quite apropos is his comment that the deflation of values in the last five years has placed “a different.aspect uрon the situation.” Stressed again are the “many efforts” made by Frank Overend tо refinance himself.
The evidence for defendants of the existencе and amount of the debt of father to son is without opposition. Whatevеr Merrill got was to secure “an antecedent debt in amount not disproportionately small” (2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 8477) in proportion to the value of the prоperty transferred to him. Such arrangements between farmer-father and fаrmer-son are- too common and well known and too frequently honest and meritorious to allow us any right, as a court of review, to overturn a decision upholding them upon such evidence as that now before us. Plaintiff’s claim is just and his attitude entirely honest. But the same is established also of the claim and attitude of the defendants.
•The order must be and is affirmed.