Moran v. Morgan

Second Circuit

Moran v. Morgan

258 F. 234, 169 C.C.A. 300, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 1919

DocketNo. 193

StatusPublished

This text of 258 F. 234 (Moran v. Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moran v. Morgan, 258 F. 234, 169 C.C.A. 300, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1194 (2d Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The explanation given by Charles V. Morgan of his affidavit dated March 25, 1909, is not very convincing, but in view of the manner in which Harriet M. Morgan concealed the document, even from her own attorney, down to the trial, we can have no confidence in it, and lay it out of the case altogether.

The real issue is between the testimony of Charles V. Morgan, who says he did not intend to prefer his son Charles H. Morgan or his [235]*235wife and children over his son Albert B. Morgan, who had no children, and the testimony of his attorney, Samuel V. Swinburne, who says he did intend to provide for the four Morgan boys. Assuming Mr. Swinburne’s account to be correct, we are quite satisfied that Charles Y. Morgan did not intend the stable premises to become, as stated in the fourth article of the answer, “the property of the defendant Harriet M. Morgan and the children of said Charles H. Morgan and Harriet M. Morgan, subject to the use of the same by the defendant Charles H. Morgan and Albert B. Morgan,_ composing the firm of Morgan Bros., so long as they should remain in business and require the use of the same.”

Mr. Swinburne, as attorney for Charles V. Morgan, drew the deed of the premises dated February 9, 1909, in fee to Charles H. Morgan, with a limited estate to Albert B. Morgan, saying nothing whatever about Harriet M. Morgan or the children, and when he subsequently, as attorney for Charles H. Morgan, drew his deed for the premises dated September 30, 1913, which should have effectuated the intention of Charles V. Morgan, he made it direct to Harriet M. Morgan in fee, without any mention whatever of the children.

We accordingly conclude that, if Charles V. Morgan intended to prefer Harriet M. Morgan and the children, he intended to do so through Charles H. Morgan, who as he thought was entirely solvent, relying upon his natural disposition as husband and father to dispose of the premises for the benefit of his wife and children. Such a conveyance would not be good against his creditors.

The decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The explanation given by Charles V. Morgan of his affidavit dated March 25, 1909, is not very convincing, but in view of the manner in which Harriet M. Morgan concealed the document, even from her own attorney, down to the trial, we can have no confidence in it, and lay it out of the case altogether.

The real issue is between the testimony of Charles V. Morgan, who says he did not intend to prefer his son Charles H. Morgan or his [235]*235wife and children over his son Albert B. Morgan, who had no children, and the testimony of his attorney, Samuel V. Swinburne, who says he did intend to provide for the four Morgan boys. Assuming Mr. Swinburne’s account to be correct, we are quite satisfied that Charles Y. Morgan did not intend the stable premises to become, as stated in the fourth article of the answer, “the property of the defendant Harriet M. Morgan and the children of said Charles H. Morgan and Harriet M. Morgan, subject to the use of the same by the defendant Charles H. Morgan and Albert B. Morgan,_ composing the firm of Morgan Bros., so long as they should remain in business and require the use of the same.”

Mr. Swinburne, as attorney for Charles V. Morgan, drew the deed of the premises dated February 9, 1909, in fee to Charles H. Morgan, with a limited estate to Albert B. Morgan, saying nothing whatever about Harriet M. Morgan or the children, and when he subsequently, as attorney for Charles H. Morgan, drew his deed for the premises dated September 30, 1913, which should have effectuated the intention of Charles V. Morgan, he made it direct to Harriet M. Morgan in fee, without any mention whatever of the children.

We accordingly conclude that, if Charles V. Morgan intended to prefer Harriet M. Morgan and the children, he intended to do so through Charles H. Morgan, who as he thought was entirely solvent, relying upon his natural disposition as husband and father to dispose of the premises for the benefit of his wife and children. Such a conveyance would not be good against his creditors.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 F. 234, 169 C.C.A. 300, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moran-v-morgan-ca2-1919.