Campbell v. Layne

250 S.W.2d 95, 35 Tenn. App. 565, 1952 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79
CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedApril 25, 1952
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 S.W.2d 95 (Campbell v. Layne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Campbell v. Layne, 250 S.W.2d 95, 35 Tenn. App. 565, 1952 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1952).

Opinion

HOWELL, J.

The original bill in this case was filed on May 7, 1949, by J. H. Campbell, Sr. and J. H. Campbell, Jr., against Ed Layne, his wife, Beulah Shrum Layne, his brother Chas. 0. Layne, the First National Bank of Tracy City, Tennessee, and others and alleged that on April 24, 1948, the complainants were awarded judgments against Ed Layne in the Circuit Court of Marion County aggregating $10,000 in suits for damages growing out of an accident and consequent injury to J. H. Campbell, Jr., in a coal mine operated by the defendant Ed Layne. The damage suits were appealed in error to' the Court of Appeals and the verdicts there affirmed and judgments entered amounting in all to $10,498, and costs. Fieri facias was issued by the Clerk and sent to the Sheriff of Grundy County wlm returned same no personal property to be found subject to the levy of execution, and executed by levying upon a small tract of land in Grundy County standing in the name of Ed Layne, which was of very little value.

The bill then alleged that for a long time before the judgments above mentioned were rendered, the defendant [567]*567Ed Layne was engaged in extensive coal mine operations and also operated a large saw mill and planing mill, owned a large fleet of tracks and other motive equipment and apparently was doing a profitable and thriving business, employing numerous employees in his extensive operations. It is then alleged that notwithstanding these operations, the defendant Ed Layne insisted that he was insolvent, owned no property except the small tract levied on and that all other property in his possession including money on deposit was the property of his wife, Beulah Shrum Layne.

The hill then alleged that after the personal injury suits mentioned were filed, the defendant Ed Layne executed a hill of sale transferring to his brother, the defendant Ohas. C. Layne, several trucks and some mules, but continued to use them in connection with his business. The hill then alleged that these transfers of personalty to his brother Chas. C. Layne were fraudulent and executed for the purpose of putting this property beyond the reach of an execution at law and to defeat the collection of any judgment against him. The hill also alleged that the defendant Ed Layne entered into a fraudulent arrangement with his wife Beulah 'Shrum Layne by which he turned over to her other assets including money and bank accounts in order to defeat the collection of complainants’ judgments. The bill prayed for a discovery as to the assets of Ed Layne, for a receiver and that these various transfers be declared fraudulent and void and be canceled and the property involved he subjected to the satisfaction of complainants’ judgments.

A supplemental hill was filed involving some money withdrawn from the Tracy City Bank. Answers were filed by the defendants.

[568]*568Ed Layne filed an answer in which, he denied the material allegations of the bill and averred that on May 26, 1949 he had filed a petition in bankruptcy in the District Court for the Eastern Division of Tennessee and had been duly adjudged a bankrupt.

Numerous other pleadings, including exceptions to answers, were filed, a receiver was appointed and John F. Green, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the estate of Ed Layne, was permitted to intervene as a party complainant.

The case was set for hearing on oral testimony and a jury was demanded by the defendants.

The case was tried by the Chancellor and a jury. Eleven issues of fact were submitted to the jury, nine of which, were answered and the remaining two withdrawn by the Court.

Thereupon and on April 1, 1950, the Chancellor filed a memorandum and decree as follows:

“This cause is now before the Court upon motion of complainants for withdrawal of issues of fact from the Jury, numbers 3 and 4.
‘ ‘ The motion was orally argued, after which briefs were prepared and submitted, all of which the Court has considered and it is of the opinion that the motion is not well taken and should be overruled.
“It should perhaps be noted that while the defendants did not file a motion for a new trial they have to some extent urged in the arguments and brief of complainants ’ motion, that the Court erred in withdrawing questions 10 and 11 from the Jury. The Court desires to point out, therefore, that questions 5 and 6 rendered questions 10 and 11 wholly immaterial and the latter two questions should not have been sub[569]*569mitted by the Court in the very outset. For if Ed Layne fraudulently transferred his mining properties and operations to his brother, Charles Layne and his wife Beulah, as questions 5 and 6 determine, it was wholly immaterial how the bank account was carried and whether Ed Layne continued in business thereafter as contemplated by questions 10- and 11. Because, as a matter of law, if the scheme or transfer was a fraudulent one the manner of subsequent operation became immaterial. If in fact it was, as the Jury found, a transfer without consideration it was in law fraudulent and remained and continued Ed Layne’s business regardless of how it was conducted.
“Questions 1 and 9, and answers of the Jury, are as follows:
“ ‘ L. Has Edd Layne, at any time, since March 11, 1947 (the date of Campbell’s injury), deposited any moneys from his business operations in his wife’s name in the First National Bank of Tracy City, Tennessee?
“Ans. Yes.
“IX. Since the date of injury of J. H. Campbell, Jr., and the resulting litigation has Edd Layne been transacting business and keeping his money and property in his wife’s or brother’s name?
“Ans. Yes.’
“In view of the foregoing the Court is of opinion that the duty devolves upon it to refer the cause to the Master, who will consider the proof on file and to this end the Court Reporter will transcribe and file the testimony of the several witnesses introduced at the hearing; and any other pertinent proof which may be offered by either side, and report:
[570]*570“(1) The amount of money belonging to Edd Layne and deposited to his wife’s name in the First National Bank at Tracy City, Tennessee, since March 11, 1947.
“(2) What amount of money belonging to Edd Layne was received or transferred to: (a) Mrs. Edd Layne, (b) Charles Layne, since March 11, 1947.
“(3) What credits, if any, and the amounts the said Mrs. Edd Layne and 'Charles Layne, respectively, are entitled to receive.
“Until the Master shall have made and filed his report, consideration of all other matters will be reserved.”

The cause was then referred to the Master who was directed upon the proof on file and any other pertinent proof to report:

“(1) The amount of money belonging to Edd Layne and deposited to his wife’s name in the First National Bank of Tracy City, Tennessee, since March 11, 1947.
“(2) What amount of money belonging to Edd Layne was received or transferred to: (a) Mrs. Edd Layne, (b) Charles Layne, since March 11, 1947.
“(3) What credits, if any, and the amounts the said Mrs. Ed Layne and Charles Layne, respectively, are entitled to receive. ’ ’

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 S.W.2d 95, 35 Tenn. App. 565, 1952 Tenn. App. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-layne-tennctapp-1952.