Case ID: okla_74/html/0014-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "POPE, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIRST NAT. BANK OF HENNESSEY v. TAYLOR.
    No. 9242
    Opinion Filed Dec. 3, 1918.
    (176 Pac. 926.)
    Fraudulent Conveyances — Judgment —* Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Evidence in this case examined, and held not to show facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover.
    (Syllabus by Pope, C.)
    Error from District Court, Kingfisher County; James B. Cullison, Judge.
    Creditor’s suit by tbe First National Bank of Hennessey, Oklahoma, against Anna Taylor. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    P. S. Nagle, for plaintiff in error.
    Bradley & Bradley, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

POPE, C.

The First National Bank of Hennessey, having first obtained a judgment against Thomas Taylor, and the same having been partially satisfied by possession, brought this action, a creditor’s cuit, against Anna Taylor, the wife of Thomas Ta-lor, from a judgment against tlie hank, and brings error.

The evidence tends to show that Thomas Taylor conveyed certain land to his wife, but the conveyance was long prior to the accrual of the indebtedness dire the bank, and there is no evidence that Thomas Taylor was insolvent at the time. AVhile there is evidence that Thomas Taylor retained money which he should have paid the bank, there is no evidence that any part of the money ever came into the possession of Anna Taylor. In her answer she admitted that she received the sum of $— in money on a certain date from her husband; but there is no evidence of the amount so received, or that it was money that should have been paid to the bank. The bank rested its case, and a demurrer to the evidence introduced by the plaintiff was sustained by the court. There was no alternative open to the trial court excel)!. to sustain the demurrer. After a careful examination of the testimony introduced, we are of the opinion that the same does not show any facts which would entitle the plaintiff bink to recover in this action.

The judgment of the lower court is af-li ruicd.

By the Court: It is so ordered.