Mates v. Young

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Mates v. Young, 251 Pa. 193 (Pa. 1915)
96 A. 479; 1915 Pa. LEXIS 656
Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Mates v. Young

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

On November 18, 1901, Elmer E. Young conveyed to his wife, Bella A. Young, the appellee, his undivided interest in the two tracts of land involved in this ejectment. Subsequently judgments were recovered against him by creditors who had claims against him at the time of his conveyance to his wife, and, on executions issued *198upon them, the sheriff sold to the appellant, as trustee for himself and others, whatever interest Young had in the lands, the judgment creditors insisting that the conveyance to his wife was in fraud of creditors, and therefore void under the statute of 13 Elizabeth. The trial before a jury was interrupted by an agreement to submit the case to the court under the provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109, and material findings of the trial judge were that, under all of the facts shown by the testimony, the conveyance on November 18, 1904, by which the land in dispute was conveyed, was not a voluntary one, but for a valuable consideration, and, even if voluntary, was not fraudulent, as the grantor had retained sufficient property with which to pay his then existing indebtedness. These findings were amply supported by testimony. The complaint of the appellant, that, in view of the abstract of title or facts filed by the defendant, and on which she relied for her defense, the court erred in admitting parol testimony, is sufficiently answered in its opinion dismissing the exceptions to findings of fact and conclusions of law. As no error is discoverable in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Conveyances — Fraud on creditors — Gift from husband to wife— Valuable consideration — Ejectment—Parol evidence. 1. Where judgment creditors of a husband brought an action of ejectment against his wife for certain real estate which he had conveyed to her in alleged fraud of creditors, a finding of the trial judge, to whom the case was submitted for determination without a jury, that the conveyance was for a valuable consideration, and, even if voluntary, would not have been fraudulent, as the grantor had retained sufficient property with which to pay hig then existing indebtedness, will not be reversed, there being evidence to support the finding. 2. In such case the court did not err in allowing defendant by parol testimony to prove a consideration for the conveyance where a rule o’f court required the defendant in an action of ejectment “to file a statement containing an abstract of the title or facts on which he relies for his defense, whether the same be in writing or otherwise......Upon trial the defendant shall be confined to proof of the title and facts Stated by him in such abstract or statement, ......” and in compliance with such rule the defendant filed an answer and plea, and stated therein that “in addition will offer parol proof to sustain defendant’s title and right of possession,” and especially where the replication averred that parol evidence would be offered to show that the conveyance in question was without consideration and in fraud of creditors.