Holliday v. Holliday
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Mitchell (8th Cir. 2008)
- United States v. Daniel Mitchell (8th Cir. 2008)
- Weir v. Day (Iowa 1881)
- Shaw v. Addison (Iowa 1947)
- Fulton v. McCullough (Iowa 1943)
- Withrow v. National Surety Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
- Hall v. Linkenauger (W. Va. 1928)
- Bond v. Warren County State Bank of Indianola (Iowa 1926)
- Stephens v. Heirs of Harrow (Iowa 1868)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The testimony sufficiently shows that the lots were purchased by the husband, that he paid the purchase money, and had them conveyed to his wife. It is further shown, however, that the conveyance was thus made at the instance and request of complainant to place them beyond legal process, if he should be prosecuted upon a certain demand, which he regarded as unjust.
The maxim, in pari delicto melior est conditio possidentis et dependentes, is to be resjiected, and when applied is fatal to complainant’s case. A conveyance made, or procured to be made, to defraud creditors, will not be set aside at the instance of the parties to it, or the one procuring it, but equity leaves the parties to their remedy at law, and will not interfere in favor of either. Equity will not enforce a reconveyance, nor enforce a secret trust in favor of the grantor or his heirs. The rule is well settled. 1 Story Eq. Jur. 61; 1 Am. Lead. C. 76, and cases cited.
Decree reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.