Goad v. Moulton
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Deed—Form Aim Effect— Consideration—Hindering and Delaying Creditors—Legal Title.—No consideration need be expressed in a deed of conveyance in order to give it effect, nor is it material that the deed was intended to hinder and delay creditors, so far as its sufficiency to pass the legal title is concerned.
Married Woman—Capacity to Contract—Promissory Note—Holder for Value.—In this State, a married woman may enter into any engagement or transaction respecting property, which it would he competent for an unmarried woman to enter into, and her capacity in this respect extends to the making of a promissory note for a consideration or the accommodation of another person; • and such a note may he enforced by a holder for value against her separate estate, though taken by him with notice of the circumstances under which it was given.
Belcher, C. C. This is an action upon a promissory note, made by the defendant Lina Moulton to the defendant D. L. Moulton, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff.
The case was tried before a jury, and the verdict and judgment were in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiff moved for a new trial, and his motion was granted as to the defendant D. L. Moulton, and denied as to the defendants Lina and L. F. Moulton.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and the order in so far as it denied his motion for a new trial, and the defendant D. L. Moulton appeals from the order granting a new trial as to him.
By their answer the defendants alleged that the defendant D. L. Moulton, being at the time financially embarrassed, was advised by the plaintiff, who was his attorney, for the purpose and with the intent to delay his creditors, to transfer and convey, without consideration, all his property to the defendant Lina, and that she should hold the same until a settlement was made with his creditors, or until their claims should be barred by the Statute of Limitations, and then reconvey it; that the plaintiff. [538]further advised and directed that in order that it might appear that a proper and sufficient consideration for the transfer of the property had been paid, and that the transfer had been made in good faith and not to hinder and delay creditors, the note in suit should be made and indorsed and then left with him; that in pursuance of the plaintiff’s advice, the defendant D. L. Moulton conveyed his property to the defendant Lina, and then the note was made, indorsed, and given to the plaintiff, but without any consideration therefor, and with the express understanding and agreement that it should never be presented for payment.
At the trial it appeared that the defendant Lina was the daughter of defendant D. L., and the wife of defendant L. F. Moulton, and that she and her husband resided on a farm, distant somewhere between twelve and twenty miles from the land conveyed to her by her father, and that in December, 1880, she had conveyed the land so conveyed to her to one Harris, for the expressed consideration of $16,000.
D. L. Moulton was called as a witness for the defendants and testified substantially to all the facts set up in the answer, and then against the objection of the plaintiff was permitted further to testify that he never delivered possession of any property under the deed to Lina, and that she never received any benefit from the sale of the land, and never got any property out of the whole transaction.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)