Bell v. Wilson

52 Ark. 171
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Cockrill, C. J.

The plaintiff in an action of ejectment .against Bell relied upon a Sheriff’s deed executed in 1881, in pursuance of a judgment rendered in 1879 against a Mrs. Moore who was the common owner of title of both parties.

Eleven years prior to the rendition of the judgment, the judgment defendant had conveyed the lands described in the Sheriff’s deed to her grandson, J. W. Moore.

In a suit brought by one Allen, a creditor of Mrs. Moore, the St. Francis Chancery Court declared the conveyance by Mrs. Moore to her grandson a fraud upon Allen’s rights as a creditor, set the deed aside and ordered that the lands be sold to pay his debts.

The decree was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff in ■.this cause to show that the conveyance to the grandson, through whom the defendant claims title, had been canceled, and that the title was thereby divested from the grandson and vested again in Mrs. Moore; and the court tried the cause upon that theory.

But the decree established nothing except that the conveyance was void as against Allen’s right to enforce the payment of his debt.

The plaintiff in the case, being a stranger to that suit, took nothing by the decree and .could build no estoppel against J. W. Moore or his grantee upon it.

Fraudulent Conveyances Who may avoid. The conveyance was good between the parties and against all the world except creditors of Mrs. Moore, who were in position to attack it for fraud. Millington v. Hill, 47 Ark., 301; Norwood v. Driggs, 50 ib., 42. If the plaintiff in this action occupied the position of a creditor entitled to attack the conveyance, he could avoid it upon proper proof. Hershey v. Latham, 42 Ark., 305; Waite on Fraudulent Conveyances, p. 51. But the Allen decree showing that the deed had been adjudged a fraud upon the rights of another creditor in a suit to which the plaintiff in this action was not a party, did not prove that the conveyance was a fraud on his rights.

Reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.

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

Bell v. Wilson, 52 Ark. 171 (Ark. 1889).

52 Ark. 171 (Bell v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rush v. Smith
394 S.W.2d 613 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1965)
McCarroll, Commissioner of Revenues v. Farrar
134 S.W.2d 561 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1939)
Murphy v. Murphy
262 S.W. 677 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1924)
Ellis v. Reed
238 F. 341 (Ninth Circuit, 1917)
Segraves v. Brooks
185 S.W. 260 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1916)
Colquitt v. Stevens
163 S.W. 1141 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1914)
Sturges v. Portis Mining Co.
206 F. 534 (E.D. North Carolina, 1913)
Johnson v. Johnson
152 S.W. 1017 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Byrd v. Haul
196 F. 762 (Eighth Circuit, 1912)
Luick v. Arends
132 N.W. 353 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1911)
Doster v. Manistee National Bank
48 L.R.A. 334 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1900)