Miller v. Drane
Miller v. Drane
Opinion of the Court
The trial judge rightly says in his opinion filed in this case that, if the plaintiff be a mere general creditor, it must be conceded that she could not maintain this action. Authorities need not be cited in support of this proposition. But he concluded that she was in some sense a judgment creditor by virtue of the judgment in the previous action, and hence was able to attack the alleged fraudulent transfers by creditors’ bill.
We are unable to agree with this proposition. The previous action was brought to construe the terms of the will of Sarah Drane and determine its effect upon the $2,000 obligation in question; and this court determined, in effect, that under the terms of the contract as modified by the will no'part of the money would become due until the death of Hiram Drane; that hence the statute of limitations did not run, and the indebtedness could not be recovered, until the death of Hiram Drane, when the remedy might be had against his estate. Miller v. Drane, 100 Wis. 1, 75 N. W. 413. It appears by the
By the Court. — Order reversed, and action remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint and for further proceedings according to law.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Miller v. Drane, imp.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published