Daugherty v. Daugherty
Before: Belcher, Fitzgerald, Fleet, Harrison, Searls, Temple
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court oí Amador County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
The conveyance in question is fraudulent. (Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 972; Swartz v. Hazlett, 8 Cal. 118; Bull v. Bray, 89 Cal. 286; Lee v. Bigg, 87 Cal. 328; Peek v. Peek, 77 Cal. Ill; 11 Am. St. Rep. 244; Judson v. Lyford, 84 Cal. 506; Windhaus v. Bootz, 92 Cal. 621; Newman v. Cordell, 43 Barb. 448; Wood v. Hunt, 38 Barb. 302.)
Searls, C. George W. Daugherty, a married man, was the owner of a residence and a tract of land known as lots numbers 11, 12, and 13, in block number 8, in the town of Jackson, county of Amador, state of California, and was indebted in sundry sums of money amounting to say four hundred dollars, of which sums two hundred and five dollars was secured by a mortgage on the lots last mentioned.
On or about May 12, 1890, said George W. Daugherty filed a declaration of homestead upon his residence property, and conveyed to his mother, Mary Daugherty one of the respondents herein, by a voluntary deed of conveyance, in consideration of love and affection, the lots above mentioned. Besides the homestead and the lots thus conveyed said Daugherty, grantor, had no other property. Mary Daugherty, the mother and respondent, either paid off the mortgage on the lots conveyed to her, or advanced to her son and grantor the money necessary therefor, viz., two hundred and ten dollars, and the mortgage was satisfied. •
George W. Daugherty continued in possession of the property so conveyed, and collected to his own use the rents therefrom, amounting to twelve dollars per month, until his death, which occurred April 5, 1891.
The appellant herein, who is his widow, was duly appointed administratrix of his estate, qualified as such, procured the homestead to be set apart for her and her infant child, and allowed claims against the estate aggregating some two hundred and six dollars, of which claims one hundred dollars at least was due prior to the voluntary conveyance aforesaid, and there being no assets for the payment of said claims the appellant, at the request of creditors, under section 1589 of the Code of Civil Procedure, instituted this action to set aside as fraudulent and void the deed of conveyance and to compel a reconveyance of the property by the mother, Mary Daugherty, etc. The complaint charges: 1. That the conveyance was voluntary and without valuable consideration; 2. Actual fraud on the part of deceased and [223]iiis mother with a view to defraud the creditors of deceased.
The answer admitted the conveyance, denied all fraud, etc. Cephas Daugherty is the husband of the other defendant, and is made a party defendant.
The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and written findings filed negativing all charges of fraud, upon which judgment was entered in favor of defendants for costs.
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)