Case ID: us_154/html/0658-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Waite", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WOODFOLK v. SEDDON.
    APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.
    No. 943.
    Submitted January 21, 1880.
    Decided March 2, 1880.
    The court, being satisfied that the various matters detailed in the opinion were part and parcel of a scheme devised to hinder and delay creditors in the collection of their debts, affirms- the decree of the court below in this case.
    
      Mr. T. D. W. Yonl&y for appellants.
    
      Mr. A. II. Garland for appellee.
   Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

After a careful consideration of this case, we are entirely satisfied that the consideration of the note executed by William W. Woodfolk to his son, William Woodfolk, on which alone the title of the son to the property in controversy depends, was fictitious, and that the-confession of judgment by the father in favor of the son, and the purchase of the property in controversy by the son under execution, were but parts of a scheme devised by the father and son through which it was hoped something might be saved from the wreck of the father’s fortune at the expense of his bona fide creditors. There is no dispute about the law applicable to these facts, and as it will serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence in detail, a further opinion on this point will • not be delivered.

The purchase of the property at- tax sale by the son was, as we think, under the circumstances, nothing more in legal effect than payment of the taxes, so' far. as the rights of this appellant are concerned. We cannot divest ourselves of the conviction that, it was part and parcel of the scheme devised to hinder and delay creditors in the collection of their debts. Decree affirmed.,