Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-04-16
..rrrLArE COURTS.


-. court Decisions.
s"P %.,.Ior rs. Charley Ferguson
7. :, I, a ~ from the Second district
VIZ so =, II, 1sss, one Archer pos
.on No, .se lot in suit and thereon con-
Fessea ~ ~. business, and on that day.
iiucted VI ,is wife. conveyed the lot
lolned ~ Plaintiffs In error offer
l. felsus..n tbot on November 20, lSSS
" d Archer for debt sued our
Ihey levied same on the lot
4 attachll'sns secured Judgment and fore
lhext uAs, ,d bought the same at the
Iplosui ,rhis evidence the court eNclud-
+ale. ne ground that 1t was irrele-
p on aS n The deed on which plain
any ,t ~ was relying was in
~ AZ pass title the property could
t1s,ssve been the homestead OF Archst
Ep y AZ ". zine the attachment was levied
~. ssots were shown that Woulu con-
XXX exemption 10 Archer alter hls
thve =. rerpcson. Defendants con-
pee mai HE conveyance 20 Fergu-
'ehu'r fraudulent notwithst inding
~ anerty was the place OF business
w x former until he ma lie the d'ed
4 w anas reclted constellation OF
4ta' The assumption OF d debt q
~ s.h1ch Archer owed. There Was no
fyg9 m,'.s that Ferguson paid the
n Nlusn other than the recital Fer
hylss ,estihed that the rental value
as ~, nroperty was $50 per month;
H., he never paid the assumed debt
Il s,S and that he agreed at the time
n. ,ssell 10 Archer at the end OF twelve
scrths he to pay me what | had
4 a s,a Other testimony corroborates
~ The court held that the sole to
-srgtison was a conuition9l SAFE. the
orditlon being that Archer should
aye the privilege 10 purchase at the
A A. naid him. and this was a bona
y and not pretended condition.
& eis.ndants offered to prove that the
VA N Ferguson was made to de-
~.sra The creditors OF Archer, and
hs, No consideration was paid This
.is.ncs was excluded on the ground
~ Inc lot was the homestead Of
reher The court of civil appeals
Is.,ns 10 have held that insolvency of
4 scher want OF consideration and In
~, 10 defraud creditors We're facts
1tholly Irrelevant A voluntary con-
A eyance OF the homestead could not
a held fraudulent as TO creditors, but
"A the deed from Archer to Ferguson
\ IA not made with intent, as between
themselves. that thereby title should
+, est in the later, but was made for
IN purpose OF giving apparent right
$nly for the purpose OF protecting II
a gaipst the claims Of Archer's credit
y after he should cease to use 1t as
4 Mace OF business then It was subject
II seizure and sale to pay his debts
n hen the exemption ceased (25 Tex,
Iss. 60 Tex. l4l; ga Tex, CD II be-
Tween Archer and Ferguson the con-
eyance, absolute on It's face, was In
4ended only to secure the payment Of
|Auch sum as the latter might pay on
~ debt assumed, then the transac-
Lion was a mortgage, and If 1t was
4Imply Intended thus to give Ferguson
Il be right to use the lot for one year In
Consideration that he would pay the
+ assumed debt then II would be practice
lilly only lease, and In either case
3ould be subject to seizure and sale
Dr debts Of Archer owing at the time
In deed was made. If as between
H. parties the deed was intended for
y ther Of these purposes, but was made
y assume the form Of an absolute
4 eed for the purpose of hindering, de-
7tying or defrauding creditors OF
trcher II would be denied effect for
'3ny purpose as against them, and any
ltvldence tending to show such intent
|fught to have been admitted When
He evidence admitted may be sufIi-
lent to sustain a finding by the trial
= burt or court OF clvil appeals on an
4 sue Of fraud, or other material issue,
AM, II evidence was offered relevant
a the issue and improperly excluded II
y becomes the duty Of this court to re-
n erse the judgment If the rejected
#yidenee might have changed the re-
fult 1t was not necessary for de-
ndant 10 plead that the transaction
'$us colorable Had the evidence been
lmltted the conclusion might have
Ken reached that the real transaction
ls not shown by the deed and that
W was put In the form Of an absolute
ICED while between the parties Archer
as the real owner for the purpose of
efrauding creditors. If such was the
purpose of the parties defendants We're
untitled TO Judgment on the evidence
ihey offered to introduce. Reversed
nd remanded. opinion by Stayton,