Baer v. Hespel

Michigan Supreme Court

Baer v. Hespel

242 N.W. 780, 258 Mich. 427, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1293

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 1932

DocketDocket No. 17, Calendar No. 36,229.

StatusPublished

This text of 242 N.W. 780 (Baer v. Hespel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baer v. Hespel, 242 N.W. 780, 258 Mich. 427, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1293 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff filed bill in aid of execution against his judgment debtors, defendants Joseph A. Hespel and Mary E. Hespel, and joined as a defendant Azelma Claeys, to whom Mrs. Hespel, a sister, had conveyed certain real estate, the conveyances being challenged as in fraud of plaintiff. The trial court found a consideration for the transfers fully equal to the value of the property, and decree dismissing the bill followed. Plaintiff has appealed.

The issue is of fact. There is conflict, but the preponderance of evidence establishes that Mrs. Hespel borrowed sums of money from her sister, giving notes therefor, and that the sister was a creditor to an amount equal to the value of the property conveyed, and that the conveyances were to meet such demands. We are not moved to disturb the finding of the trial court.

Affirmed, with costs to appellees.

McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred. *Page 429

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiff filed bill in aid of execution against his judgment debtors, defendants Joseph A. Hespel and Mary E. Hespel, and joined as a defendant Azelma Claeys, to whom Mrs. Hespel, a sister, had conveyed certain real estate, the conveyances being challenged as in fraud of plaintiff. The trial court found a consideration for the transfers fully equal to the value of the property, and decree dismissing the bill followed. Plaintiff has appealed.

The issue is of fact. There is conflict, but the preponderance of evidence establishes that Mrs. Hespel borrowed sums of money from her sister, giving notes therefor, and that the sister was a creditor to an amount equal to the value of the property conveyed, and that the conveyances were to meet such demands. We are not moved to disturb the finding of the trial court.

Affirmed, with costs to appellees.

McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred. *Page 429

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 N.W. 780, 258 Mich. 427, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baer-v-hespel-mich-1932.