Union Trust Co. v. Fisher

25 F. 178
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota·Decided October 15, 1885·Published

Opinion

Nelson, J.

A judgment was entered against the defendant F. A. Fisher on April 23, 1883, for $12,161.24, in the district court of Hennepin county, in the state óf Minnesota, and execution issued, which was duly returned unsatisfied on June 8th following. A bill is filed by the judgment creditor to reach and subject to the lien of the judgment certain real property standing upon the records of the county of Hennepin in the name of the defendants, Marion Fisher, his wife, Thomas J. Fisher, his brother, and Andrew J. Boardman, charging that this property was placed in the name of these parties for the purpose and with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of Freeman A. Fisher, and to conceal the same, and prevent its application to and for the payment of his debts. The real estate in the name of his wife is described as lots 16 and 17, in block 5, in South Minneapolis addition to Minneapolis, in the state of Minnesota, and was conveyed to her for the consideration of $700 by R. W. Jordan and wife, June 13, 1881, and duly recorded; also lot 5, in block 34, in Wilson, Bell & Wagner’s addition to Minneapolis, conveyed by Nellie B. Skattuck about April 12,1882, for the sum of $2,000. And the bill charges that Freeman J. Fisher paid the consideration for all this property, and his wife paid no part of it, and that the conveyances were made to her to defraud creditors, and upon a secret trust for him.

[179] The bill further charges in substance that Thomas J. Fisher took a conveyance, which was duly recorded, from Freeman A. Fisher and wife, March 11, 1881, of land in Minneapolis, described as follows:

“Commencing at a point on the lino dividing block 61, in the original town (now city) of Minneapolis, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the said register of deeds, from Third street, 110 feet distant from Utah street, (now First avenue north;) thence running south-easterly with the line of said Third street, 55 feet; thence south-westerly at right angles with Third street, 165 feet; thence at right angles towards Utah street and parallel with Third street, 55 feet; tlionce at right angles north-easterly to the place of beginning.”

The consideration in the deed purported to be $9,625, but it is alleged that Thomas J. Fisher received and accepted the deed for the purpose of defrauding creditors, etc. Thomas also has a deed for one-half of lots 8 and 9, block 73, in Minneapolis, and the bill alleges that this purchase was made from Bobert Kelley by one Dodson, for his benefit and that of F. A. Fisher, and on April 19, 1883, Kelley transferred the Jots by deed to Dodson and Thomas A. Freeman, and that the latter paid no part of the consideration, but that it was paid by Freeman and put in Thomas’ name as a secret trust and to defraud creditors.

In July and August, 1874, the defendant Freeman A. Fisher, a member of the firm of Farnam & Fisher, borrowed from the complainant, a citizen of Illinois, about $10,000, giving the firm notes for the loan. Farnam & Fisher were proprietors of the State Flouring-mill at Chicago, and Fisher was also a builder and contractor. The firm failed before tbe loans made by the complainant were paid. On March 8, 1875, the complainant obtained judgment in Chicago for $8,180.21, and afterwards, on the removal of F. A. Fisher to Minnesota, in a suit instituted in the Hennepin county district court, recovered a judgment which is the foundation of this suit. On July 14,1877, the firm of Farnam & Fisher were declared bankrupt on a voluntary petition filed in the district court for the Northern district of Illinois, but Fisher never obtained his discharge. Ho came to Minneapolis in 1879, and has since been a citizen and resident there, engaged as a contractor and builder.

FACTS ABOUT PROPERTY IN NAME OF MARION FISHER,

Marion Fisher, wife of Freeman A., had no separate property or any money to pay for the Jordan lot deeded to her. In 1871 and 1872, 10 years before the deed was executed, she and her husband, F. A. Fisher, were living in Chicago, taking in lodgers. She attended to the duties of the house without any servant. She had no opportunity of getting any money except from her husband, and she states that he agreed to pay her what it would cost to keep a servant if she would do her own work. During this time she saved, as she states, $300, which was not paid, but her husband promised to keep it and give her good interest on it when she wanted to invest it. When the [180] Jordan property was bought in 1881, and the deed executed in her name, the consideration for the purchase was a part of this $300, and accrued interest, which her husband paid. This indebtedness to her had not been included in the schedule of debts filed by Fisher in the bankruptcy proceedings.

CONCLUSION AS TO THIS PROPERTY.

The principles settled in Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 584, control this branch of the case in favor of complainants, and this property in the name of Marion Fisher is subject to the payment of this judgment.

FACTS ABOUT OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY.

F. A. Fisher negotiated the sale and transfer of them, and the claim is that the wife borrowed the money of Dodson, her husband’s partner, and gave her note for the amount, and this money was the first installment, a mortgage being given for the balance. The note has never been paid by her.

CONCLUSION.

There can be but one opinion about this transaction, although the right to hold this property is strenuously urged by counsel. It is not merely suspicious, but the intent is clear from the facts attending the transaction, and appearing in the record, which are not inserted here. This property, therefore, must be held subject to the judgment.

THIRD-STREET SHOP PROPERTY.

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

Union Trust Co. v. Fisher, 25 F. 178 (circtdmn 1885).

25 F. 178 (Union Trust Co. v. Fisher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seitz v. Mitchell
94 U.S. 580 (Supreme Court, 1877)