The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-05-04


a bankrupt will not, at the suit OF his
assignee in bankruptcy, be set aside on
the ground that 1t was made IN
fraud of creditors, where it appears
valuable consideration and that the
grantee, who married the grantor the
next day, took without knowledge that
the grantor was insolvent or that the
making of the conveyance would leave
him lnSolyent.
IL is competent IN such case for the grantee
20 prove a consideration of both money
and marriage although the only con-
sideration named in the conveyance is
one dollar.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY BIcK-
ERToN, J.
In 1890 George Norton was a
clerk in the employ of Levers u
Cooke. receiving regular salary.
That firm gave Norton credit for
lumber and material, and money to
buy a lot and build house, on the
slope of Punch5owl Hill; at the time
he owed several other small debts,
and owned other property. On Octo-
Der lst. 1890, Norton conveyed the
property on Puuchbowl Hill to Miss
T.. K. komoikehuehu, the consider
alton named in the deed being one
dollar. The following day they
were married In January 1893 the
said Norton was adjudicated Bank
rupt, and the complainant was ap-
pointed the Assignee and duly quail
fed. In May 1898. he brought this
bill in equity to nave the deed can
celIed on the ground that it was
made in fraud of his creditors, and
after demurrer, and amendments,
the matter came on to be heard on
It's merits January 10, 1894; and
after the close OF the comprehensive
case the respondents counsel moved
that the bill be dismissed The
Court took the motion under consid
GRAFTON and on February 6, 1894,
Judge Cooper fled his decision, sus-
tanning the motion, and dismissed
the bill. Accordingly on February
18th, a decree was duly signed and
fled. On the same day the COM |
plainant appealed from the said dec |
ision and decree to this Court, and |
the matter is now here on said ap- |
peal.
It seems to us that this whole mat |
ter depends on these questions:
First. What notice the respond
emit had of the financial condition OF
Norton at the date of the deed, did
she have any reason to believe that
be was insolvent, or that he was
making this deed attempting to de-
fraud or delay his creditors
Second. What was the consldera-
ton for this deed of conveyance
There are numerous authorities
sited by counsel as to the effect OF
leeds from husband TO wife. We do
not see how this question can IN any
way enter into this case for the deed
now In question was executed on the
lay before the marriage We have
reviewed the evidence In
his case and fail to find any intent
on on the part of Norton to defraud
II delay his creditors. We find that
he principal creditors, Levers &
Cooke knew what was to be done,
and it was understood by that firm
hat wedding present Of $1,000 that
vas to be made to respondent by her
sister, was TO be paid to them on ac-
count of Norton's Indebtedness; and
his according TO MIR. Cookies own evl-
lenee was done. 1t is clear that the
irm well knew the condition OF
Norton's affairs and his ability to
oay his debts; be was In their en-
oloy receiving wages at the rate OF
$50 per month; they at that time
lad given him credit for $500 and
since then had given him further
credit but did not consider 1t neces
,ary TO take mortgage on his prop
srty. Mr.. Cooke says he did not
consider Norton insolVent, In fact 1t
seems to Us from the evidence that
Levers s. Cooke virtually gave their
consent (if that was necessary; they
raised no objection whatever to
Norton conveying this property to
they were told that the
5000 would be paid to them; they !
it and accepted IT. These
are all undisputed facts Norton be
came sick and was unable to attend
10 business, and lost his employment. /
ted in his being adjudicsted bank
rupt. There Is not one iota OF evidence
TO indicate that he contemplated
bankruptcy at the time he made this
deed. nor Is their evidence to show
that he was a bankrupt at the time
1t is urged by the plaintiffs counsel
hat the making of the deed In ques-
ion. made Norton In fact insolvent
because it put out OF his hands part
Of the property with which he could
pay his debts But the question be-
fore us is not what his condition was
after he made the deed. but what the
respondent knew of his condition az
the time he made the deed. We will
now take up the question as to "has
notice the respondent had OF tho
financial condition of Norton. In
the case of Prewit Y. Wilson, 1eS U,