Stephens v. Miller

Supreme Court of Iowa

Stephens v. Miller

54 N.W. 534, 88 Iowa 710

DecidedJanuary 26, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 54 N.W. 534 (Stephens v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephens v. Miller, 54 N.W. 534, 88 Iowa 710 (iowa 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Rothrock, J.

David V. Miller is the son of J. B. Miller, and the land conveyed was the farm on which said J. B. Miller had for many years resided. For some years prior to the conveyance, David V. Miller resided in Dallas county. About one week before the conveyance was made, D. V. Miller arrived at the house of his said father, on a visit. He claims that he came there with the sum of two thousand, five hundred dollars in his personal possession, and that he bought the farm and paid that amount of money for it. The question as to the isharaeter of the [711]*711transaction is one of fact. There is no legal question involved, except the conclusion to he drawn from the facts. We have each carefully examined the evidence, and our conclusion is that the court correctly found that the sale and conveyance were fraudulent as to the creditors of the grantors. We need not recite the evidence upon which our conclusion is based. The decree is affirmed.

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

Rothrock, J.

David V. Miller is the son of J. B. Miller, and the land conveyed was the farm on which said J. B. Miller had for many years resided. For some years prior to the conveyance, David V. Miller resided in Dallas county. About one week before the conveyance was made, D. V. Miller arrived at the house of his said father, on a visit. He claims that he came there with the sum of two thousand, five hundred dollars in his personal possession, and that he bought the farm and paid that amount of money for it. The question as to the isharaeter of the [711]*711transaction is one of fact. There is no legal question involved, except the conclusion to he drawn from the facts. We have each carefully examined the evidence, and our conclusion is that the court correctly found that the sale and conveyance were fraudulent as to the creditors of the grantors. We need not recite the evidence upon which our conclusion is based. The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 N.W. 534, 88 Iowa 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-miller-iowa-1893.