Cutter v. Griswold
Opinion of the Court
The lot in question was conveyed to Jerome by Griffin, in consideration of other lands conveyed at the same time to Griffin, by Eber Griswold, the father of Jerome. The purchase was made by Eber Gris-wold, and the consideration was paid by him, but the deed was taken in the name of his son, who then was, and still is, a minor.
Every voluntary conveyance by a father to his child, cannot be avoided by the creditors of the father. When made in good faith by way of advancement, and abundant means are retained by the father for the payment of his debts, the conveyance, though voluntary, is good against existing as well as subsequent creditors. Van Wyck v. Seward, 6 Paige 11. 62; Bank of United States v. Hausman, Id. 526; Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. R. 406; Jackson v. Post, 15 Wend. R. 588; Salmon v. Bennett, 1 Day Conn. R. N. S. 525.
For aught that appears, Eber Griswold parted with all his property to Griffin, in consideration of the deed to Jerome. The Garrison debt was then in existence; Jerome was but sixteen years of age; and Eber Griswold took immediate possession of the lot, and resided on it till his death. The legal inference to be drawn from these facts is, that the deed was taken by Eber Griswold in Jerome’s name, to keep the property from his creditors. The evidence introduced for the purpose of showing the property deeded to Griffin was held by Eber Griswold in trust for .Jerome, does not establish that fact.
A decree must be entered declaring the deed from Griffin to Jerome was taken in the name of the latter to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of Eber Griswold;
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.