Purkitt v. Polack (1861) · DecisionDepot

Purkitt v. Polack

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1861Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed a judgment setting aside real estate conveyances as fraudulent, finding that the circumstances surrounding the transaction sufficiently established fraudulent intent.

Issues

Whether averring a grantee is a fictitious person is inconsistent with a claim that a deed was made to defraud creditors.
Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of fraud.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no necessary inconsistency in averring the grantee, Hall, to be a fictitious person, and that the deed to her, or in her name, was made to hinder and defraud creditors.”

“The conclusion of fraudulent intent is usually gathered from circumstances; and it is not often that the proof is more satisfactory than here.”

Synopsis

In a bill to set aside certain conveyances of real estate as fraudulent against creditors, there is no necessary inconsistency in averring the grantee to be a fictitious person ; and that the deed to him, or in his name, was made to hinder and defraud creditors.

In such bills positive proof of fraud is seldom to be obtained, but the fraudulent intent must be gathered from circumstances. And in this case, the control of the property by the grantor after the alleged sale, his indebtedness to plaintiff at the time, the absence of the grantee from the State, and the failure on the part of the latter to show any payment of consideration, were prima facie proof of fraud.

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.

Bill filed to set aside certain conveyances of real estate upon the ground of fraud.

None of the assignments of error in this case can be maintained. 1. There is no necessary inconsistency in averring the grantee, Hall, to be a fictitious person, and that the deed to her, or in her name, was made to hinder and defraud creditors. 2. The facts in the record strongly support the charge of fraud, especially in the absence of explanatory proof by the alleged grantee. It is seldom that positive proof of fraud can be obtained. The conclusion of fraudulent intent is usually gathered from circumstances; and it is not often that the proof is more satisfactory than here. The control of the property after the alleged sale, the indebtedness of the grantor at the time, the absence of the grantee from the State, and the failure on the part of the latter to show any payment of consideration, were amply sufficient to raise a prima ,faeie intendment of fraud in the transaction. Certainly, we are not -disposed to interfere with a finding based on such facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Purkitt v. Polack

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief