Buck v. Turritin
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1925, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Buck v. Turritin (Minn. 1925)
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 complaint alleges that the defendant Bessie L. Turritin paid $5,656 to the defendant H. E. Pence through the defendant Ira W. Bouck, her father, in fraud of her creditors. There were separate demurrers by Bouck and Pence. Each demurrer was sustained and the plaintiff appeals.
On February 15, 1922, the plaintiff recovered judgment against Mrs. Turritin for $13,358 upon a promissory note executed on January 1, 1921. Execution was returned unsatisfied. In October, 1921, she paid to her father Bouck and through him to Pence $5,656. This payment was without consideration. It was upon a debt which her deceased husband Albert H. Turritin, who was insolvent when he died, owed Pence and upon which her father Bouck was surety.
The facts alleged show a gift fraudulent as to existing creditors. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. §§ 3873, 3874. A voluntary payment of her husband’s debt by a widow may be fraudulent as to her creditors.' See Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Thompson, 128 Cal. 506, 61 Pac. 94. A merely preferential payment is not fraudulent. Crookston State Bank v. Lee, 124 Minn. 112, 144 N. W. 433; Engenmoen v. Lutroe, 153 Minn. 409, 190 N. W. 894. The case does not involve, as the defendants argue, a preferential payment. The complaint states a cause of action.
Orders reversed.
The Chief Justice took no part.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.