49 Kan. 774 | Kan. | 1892
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This was an action.in the. court below to recover the possession of certain wheat, of the value of $400,
It is claimed that the trial court refused to permit testimony concerning what Jane Taylor and her father had said as to the means they intended to employ to defeat McBride’s judgment against A. G. Taylor. The instructions of the trial court were not excepted to, and it appears from the instructions that the land deeded to Jane Taylor by her father, A. G. Taylor, was a homestead. If the land was a homestead, A. G. Taylor could have made a valid conveyance of it without consideration, and Jane Taylor, the grantee, could hold it free from any claim of her father’s creditors.
It is no fraud on a creditor for the debtor to deal as he will with property which the law exempts from attachment or seizure for the debt. (Hixon v. George, 18 Kas. 253, and cases cited; Bish. Contr., §1207; Delashmut v. Trau, 44 Ohio, 613.)
If the property was a homestead or exempt, the questions ruled out by the trial court were wholly immaterial. If Jane Taylor owned the land deeded to her by her father, it is clearly evident from the testimony that she owned the wheat and other crops grown thereon. The wheat in dispute was not sown until long after the 8th of July, 1887, the date of the deed. The statements of A. G. Taylor and Jane Taylor, offered in evidence, were made before the conveyance of the
Perceiving no material error in the case, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.