Tyberandt v. Raucke

Illinois Supreme Court

Tyberandt v. Raucke

96 Ill. 71, 1879 Ill. LEXIS 47

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 1, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 Ill. 71 (Tyberandt v. Raucke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tyberandt v. Raucke, 96 Ill. 71, 1879 Ill. LEXIS 47 (Ill. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in equity, by John Eaucke, against Maria Tyberandt and H. E. Tyberandt, her husband, to set aside a certain deed, executed by the wife to the husband, on the ground that it was made to hinder and delay creditors, etc. The allegations of the bill are put in issue by the answers of the defendants, and the only proof of fraud lies in the fact that the conveyance is by an indebted wife to a husband. Both husband and wife swear that the conveyance was executed in consideration that the husband undertook to pay certain specified debts of the wife, amounting, in all, to $556, which he has since paid. It does not appear that this was a grossly inadequate price for the property, and there is no other circumstance tending to establish fraud. Both husband and wife deny, in their evidence, all intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

The debt under which complainant claims title was one incurred by Maria Tyberandt as surety, and both she and her husband deny knowledge of the existence of this debt when the conveyance was made, claiming that they supposed that it had been paid or otherwise secured.

We do not think the evidence affords sufficient proof of fraud to defeat the husband’s equitable title in the property.

The decree is reversed, and -the cause remanded.

Decree reversed.

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

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in equity, by John Eaucke, against Maria Tyberandt and H. E. Tyberandt, her husband, to set aside a certain deed, executed by the wife to the husband, on the ground that it was made to hinder and delay creditors, etc. The allegations of the bill are put in issue by the answers of the defendants, and the only proof of fraud lies in the fact that the conveyance is by an indebted wife to a husband. Both husband and wife swear that the conveyance was executed in consideration that the husband undertook to pay certain specified debts of the wife, amounting, in all, to $556, which he has since paid. It does not appear that this was a grossly inadequate price for the property, and there is no other circumstance tending to establish fraud. Both husband and wife deny, in their evidence, all intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

The debt under which complainant claims title was one incurred by Maria Tyberandt as surety, and both she and her husband deny knowledge of the existence of this debt when the conveyance was made, claiming that they supposed that it had been paid or otherwise secured.

We do not think the evidence affords sufficient proof of fraud to defeat the husband’s equitable title in the property.

The decree is reversed, and -the cause remanded.

Decree reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 Ill. 71, 1879 Ill. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyberandt-v-raucke-ill-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack