Hurlburt v. Jones

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1864Published

Before: Shafter

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a married woman acting as a sole trader under the Act of 1852 is not protected if she conducts business nominally on her own account while actually operating for her husband's benefit to defraud creditors. Furthermore, the court affirmed the judgment because the trial court's exclusion of evidence was not erroneous given the pleadings, and the findings were supported by evidence.

Issues

Did the trial court err in excluding evidence of a lease when the execution and application of said lease were admitted by the pleadings?
Does a married woman acting as a sole trader under the Act of 1852 receive protection if the business is conducted to shield the husband's assets from creditors?
Are the trial court's findings supported by the evidence where there is a conflict in testimony?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The execution of the lease was not in issue, and we do not consider that the Court erred in excluding evidence that had no bearing upon any of the points in controversy.”

“The substantive provision of the Act is, that, these forms having been duly observed, the woman shall, in good faith, actually carry on the business thereafter “on her own account.””

“we cannot grant a new trial where the evidence is in conflict.”

Synopsis

Evidence.—It is not error for the Court to reject testimony offered by the plaintiff to prove allegations of the complaint which are admitted by the answer. ,

Sole Trader.—If a husband arranges with his wife that she engage in business as a sole trader for the mere purpose of shielding their joint earnings against the existing and subsequent creditors of the husband, and with the understanding between them that the property used in or acquired by the business shall belong to both, and the husband have power to dispose of it, this is a fraud upon the creditors, and the property is liable for the husband’s debts.

Same.—If a husband embarrassed with debt makes a settlement upon or conveys to his wife, as sole trader, property, for the purpose of delaying or defrauding his creditors, the conveyance is void.

Findings of Fact.—If the findings of fact of the Court below are defective, and no objection is taken to them on that ground in the Court below, the objection cannot be raised in the Supreme Court.

By the Court, Shafter, J. This is an action brought by a married woman, to recover the possession of a certain quantity of wheat levied on by the defendant, as Sheriff of Colusa County, as the property of her husband. The plaintiff claims to own the wheat as sole trader, under the Act of 1852.

The answer first denies the principal allegations of the. complaint. Second, justifies the seizure complained of, on the ground that the plaintiff became a sole trader, or operator, in “ a general ranching business” in 1857, for the purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding the creditors of her husband, and it is further alleged that the seizure in question was. made by virtue of a writ of attachment, issued in an action brought against the husband by one of his creditors, in 1862 ;■ and that the wheat was in fact the property of the husband. .

The trial was by the Court, and the judgment rendered was in favor of the defendant. The appeal is taken from the judgment, and from the order overruling plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

1. On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence a lease to the plaintiff from one Robert Ord, executed October §0,1858, and offered to prove by Ord the execution of the lease. On objection taken by the defendant, the lease was excluded, and the plaintiff excepted.

The execution of the lease was charged in the complaint, and it was further averred that the lease was of the land upon-which the wheat in question was raised; and neither of the allegetions was denied in the answer.

The execution of the lease was not in issue, and we do not consider that the Court erred in excluding evidence that had no bearing upon any of the points in controversy. Had the answer not admitted that the wheat was raised upon the land included in the lease, it might have been proper for the plaintiff to give her lease in evidence for the purpose of applying the lease by proper proof to that land. But in view of the fact that the authenticity of the lease and its application to [228]the land on which the crop was raised were both admitted, the ruling of the Court cannot be considered as erroneous.

But it is insisted for the appellant, that it is apparent from the findings that the Court, in deciding the case, failed to notice the state of the pleadings in relation to the execution of the lease.

Hurlburt v. Jones

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief