Coldiron v. Asheville Shoe Co.

25 S.E. 238, 93 Va. 364, 1896 Va. LEXIS 83
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedJuly 9, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 238 (Coldiron v. Asheville Shoe Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coldiron v. Asheville Shoe Co., 25 S.E. 238, 93 Va. 364, 1896 Va. LEXIS 83 (Va. 1896).

Opinion

Riely, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The liability of certain lands in Lee county for the payment of judgments recovered against J. J. Kelly, Sr., is the matter for determination in this case. These lands were purchased with the proceeds of other lands in Wise county that had belonged to Kelly.

In determining this matter, the main question for consideration is whether Kelly did in fact convey, in 1884, to his daugher, Rebecca Coldiron, and to his son, James F. Kelly, his land in Wise county, which is designated in the record as the “Moon-Kelly” tract; for upon the decision of that question the case, in our view, mainly turns.

It appears that Kelly, Sr., owned a number of tracts of land in Wise county, and, being attacked in 1884 with a dangerous malady, determined, instead of making a will, to divide up and convey his lands to his children. Conveyances to this effect are in the record, all of which bear date on September 1, 1884, and were acknowledged before the same notary public on March 4, 1885. Among these conveyances are the deeds to Rebecca Coldiron and James F. Kelly for the “ Moon-Kelly ” tract of land. They bear the same date and were acknowledged before the same notary public, and on the same day as the other deeds. Some of these deeds were recorded in a short time thereafter, while others were not recorded for several years, and others still [366]*366were never recorded. Among the last are the deeds to Rebecca Coldiron and James F. Kelly. It is not questioned that they were executed and acknowledged as they purport to have been, but it is claimed by the appellees, who are the judgment creditors, that they were never delivered, and consequently that the land remained the property of the grantor.

The Asheville Shoe Company, having recovered, in 1891, a judgment against Kelly, Sr., filed its original and amended bills to enforce the lien thereof against the lands in Lee county, which, it averred, he'had bought of James B. Richmond and John M. Johnson and fully paid for, but had not obtained the legal title. The bill expressly charged that he was seized and possessed of these lands in his own right, and required him to answer the bill upon oath.

The complainant subsequently filed a supplemental bill in which it alleged that Kelly, Sr. had sold but not conveyed” the land bought of Richmond to his son, James F. Kelly, and to W.. S. Coldiron, the husband of his daughter, Rebecca, and the land bought of Johnson to his son, David Kelly, and to Sampson Bishop, the husband of his daughter, Jemima; and charged that the “ said sales ” were made without consideration deemed valuable in law. It called upon W. S. Coldiron, Rebecca Coldiron, James F. Kelly, Sampson Bishop, Jemima Bishop and David Kelly, who were made defendants, and upon J. J. Kelly, Sr., to answer the bill upon oath; and to answer also upon oath a number of special interrogatories. Among these were the following:

Do you and each of you state what land or lands or interests in real estate J. J. Kelly, Sr., now owns or claims to own, and give a full description thereof; also what land or lands or interest in real estate derived by sale or gift or deeds from J. J. Kelly, Sr., you or your respective wives own or have or pretend or claim to have or own.”
[367]*367“ If any such, ownership or claim of ownership is discovered, do you and each of you state your respective knowledge, information and belief, fully and without shifts or reservation as to the value thereof, and as to the consideration given or to be given therefor, its real value and every other fact in relation thereto.”
“ Do you, or any of you, know or believe, or have you heard of anything not heretofore stated by you, which will throw any light on the matters mentioned in any part of this bill, or in the original, or in the amended bill, heretofore filed in this cause? If so, state fully what you know, have heard, or believe.”

J. J. Kelly, Sr., filed a full and explicit answer to the original, amended, and supplemental bills. His co-respondents, W. S. Coldiron, Rebecca Coldiron, James F. Kelly, Sampson Bishop, Jemima. Bishop, and David Kelly, filed brief answers, in which they referred to and adopted the answer of Kelly, Sr., as their answer, and averred that the statements therein contained were true.

Kelly, Sr., in his answer to the several bills and special interrogatories, after denying that he was seized or possessed of, or had any right to, or any beneficial interest in, any real estate whatsoever in Lee county, answered that the said lands were bought for Rebecca Coldiron and James F. Kelly with the proceeds of sale of the “Moon-Kelly” tract of land in Wise county, which he had conveyed to them in 1884, and had sold for them to E. B. Moon in 1888. He further answered that he had divided his lands in Wise county among his children, and conveyed the same to them as hereinbefore mentioned, and filed the deeds or all that are material to this controversy. He stated further that “the said deeds were delivered to the said children shortly after the dates of the acknowledgments thereof, and that ever since, the lands therein respectively conveyed have been considered and have been the lands of his said children respectively.”

[368]*368The only witness examined by the complainant to disprove a delivery of the deeds was F. M. Clarkston, a son-in-law of Kelly, Sr., and to whose wife one of the conveyances was made. He testified that he did not know anything about-their delivery, and did not know that he ever heard of it. His testimony, at best, is mere negative evidence, for he did not say that the deeds were not delivered, but merely that he did not know that he had ever heard of their delivery. It is manifest that he misapprehended the purport of the question, for the deed to his wife was recorded, and the land conveyed by it to his wife was subsequently sold and conveyed by him and her to the Virginia Coal and Iron Company.

The conduct of the parties in dealing with the land was much relied on to overthrow the answers. The record shows that, although Kelly, Sr., had conveyed the “ Moon-Kelly,r tract of land to Rebecca Coldiron and James F. Kelly in 1884, he conveyed it to Bullitt & McDowell, a prominent law firm, by deed dated March 24, 1888; and that Moon, claiming that Kelly had agreed to sell the land to him on March 23, 1887, brought suit to rescind the sale to Bullitt & McDowell and annul their deed. This the court refused to do. Negotiations subsequently ensued between Kelly, Bullitt & McDowell, and Moon, with the result that Bullitt & McDowell re-conveyed the land to Kelly, and he, on October 14, 1888, conveyed it to Moon for the price of $55,563.68, for which amount two notes were given payable to Kelly, one being for $10,838.33 and the other for $44,725.35, which were secured on the land. It is stated in the answer that the sale and conveyance of the land by Kelly in his own name, instead of in the names of Rebecca Coldiron and James F. Kelly, to whom he had conveyed it, was by their direction, and is explained upon the ground that their deeds had not been recorded and they thought that a better sale could be made of the land as a whole than by a separate sale of their respective parts of it.

[369]*369The land being the property of Rebecca Coldiron and Jas. F.

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

Related

S. Leto Construction Corp. v. Herkimer Construction Corp.
13 Misc. 2d 598 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Eisenberg v. Hicks
199 Misc. 52 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)
Wiltshire v. Warburton
59 F.2d 611 (Fourth Circuit, 1932)
Miller v. Kemp
160 S.E. 203 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1931)
Savings & Loan Corp. v. Bear
154 S.E. 587 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1930)
Ransome v. Watson's Administrator
134 S.E. 707 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1926)
Wilson v. Wilson
118 S.E. 270 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1923)
Moore v. Boise Land & Orchard Co.
173 P. 117 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1918)
Charlottesville Hardware Co. v. Perkins
86 S.E. 869 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1915)
Haynor v. Haynor
70 S.E. 531 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1911)
Becker v. Johnson
68 S.E. 986 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1910)
Dingus v. Minneapolis Improvement Co.
37 S.E. 353 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1900)
Kelly v. Hamblen
36 S.E. 491 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1900)
Floyd v. Harding
28 Gratt. 401 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1877)
Borst v. Nalle
28 Gratt. 423 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1877)
Ragsdale v. Hagy
9 Gratt. 409 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1852)
Smith's Adm'r v. Charlton's Adm'r
7 Gratt. 425 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1851)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 S.E. 238, 93 Va. 364, 1896 Va. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coldiron-v-asheville-shoe-co-va-1896.