Reference

Full Case Name

J. S. Houseman, Administrator, etc., of Elizabeth Grossman v. Ira Grossman, G. W. Grossman, Joseph Grossman, Elvira Showers, Jane Neese and Mary Gillett

Cited By

20 cases

Status

Published

Syllabus

Equity — Creditor's bill — Fraudulent conveyance. In Pennsylvania a creditor’s bill may be maintained to subject the land of a debtor which has been conveyed away in fraud of creditors to the claims of the latter, by setting aside the fraudulent conveyance, if the debtor is dead, and the creditor has a lien upon the land. Husband and wife — Fraudulent conveyance. . If a wife is a creditor of her husband she is within the protection of the statutes against fraudulent conveyances, and is entitled to invoke’ their benefit in case of a conveyance by her husband in fraud of her rights. Heeds — Fraudulent conveyance — Creditors of the grantor. A debtor cannot strip himself of his property by a conveyance to a third party, reserving at the same time a benefit therein to himself, or to members of Ms family. The act is fraudulent on its face so as to affect not only the grantee but, where the reservation appears in the deed, third parties also claiming under him. Married women — Fraudulent conveyance — Judgment. A married woman who joins with her husband in a conveyance of his lands to the husband’s sons in consideration of the support of herself and her husband is not thereby barred from enforcing the lien of a judgment which she had acquired against her husband’s estate for debt existing prior to the conveyance. A married woman joined with her husband in the conveyance of the latter’s lands to her husband’s sons, at a time when the husband was owing her $1,900 for borrowed money. The consideration named in the deed was $9,000, the payment of two debts of the husband amounting to $1,200, and the maintenance of the grantor and his wife. The two debts were paid, but the evidence tended to show that it was not intended that the remainder of the money consideration should be paid. It also appeared that the agreement as to the maintenance was not fulfilled. The sons went into possession, and the husband and wife removed to a small place owned by the wife. After the husband’s death, the wife obtained a judgment against her husband’s estate for $1,900. The evidence also showed that statements were made to the wife at the time of the execution of the deed which were not in fact true, and which tended to mislead her into the belief that her claim would be paid. Held, that the wife’s administrator could enforce the lien of her judgment against the land in the possession of her husband’s sons.