The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-05-07
VI O'LEARY MUSTPAY
co,v.yance to His Brother De-
clared Fraudulent.
CANISTER TO AVOID JUDGMENT.
r-o,,le Over Tugboat- OF .
Miner Tires of Cruelty - The
shaw VIII Admitted.

r..sx ofI.ezry, according 10 decision
- re ssprssns court. will De compelled
= sarssey a judgment held against him
= flames Duvasl. The case dates from
T.,aary q 1885, waen Duvali obtained
s~~aget against O'Leary Ia the superior
soart for 800. and February 3 Marion
hamilton also recorded a $50 verde.
.g1lasf OLeary for SANDER. and after
80 assigned the judgment 70 Duvali
on January . James OLeary conveyed
:. ais real estate 10 his brother Daniel.
ard when execution was issued here was
-4.s.ax 10 levy on Aftsrward another
s.ses.tien was issued and the sheriff was
.soceediHg 20 sell the property levied on
rssr perpetual injunction was issued,
AID the costs taxed against Dugall, " no
APPEALED.
ne supreme court. in denying a motion
10 dismiss the appeal, goes into the naer-
Is Of the case. and discusses at length
ne transfer OF property from one broth
= 10 another. fhe consideration for the
transfer was y, 90, a. appears from the
record yet the decision holds that there
vas fraud, and orders the court below to
grant DgyaI his appropriate relief.
rraer circumstances such as the case
presents the court holds that two ele-
rsn.s are requisite to make a transfer
saIG-gooi faith and a valuable consId-
kfztl3A- Al AsE ttdInArA ~ tOE q valuable
tansidertion. the remaining question Is
whether {; Is bona fide: and II II !s not in
rodd faith. IL matters not whether the
consideration was adequate or not.
The rule ia announced I'm Bump on
Fraud: The reason is manifest. Fraud
Ray as readily be effected when a full
s.d fair price is paid as when nothing is
paid. person may be resolved not TO
pas bis debts, and another. knowing this
- III - =.
whole real estate at fair and full price.
ana thus enable him TO defeat the claims
Of his creditors Although the purchaser
gains no advantage he enables the debtor
10 avoid the payment OF his debts, and
fse effect upon the creditors Is precisely
As X nothing were paid"
Applying the above rule TO the case In
hand, the supreme court says:
1T will be noticed, I'm the first place
thar the relations are intimate. for IL ap-
pears from the testimony that Daniel
ofeary and James O'Jeary were part
hers IN BUSINESS % the extent or each one
o. them owning an undivided one-half In
ssrest in the lands IN dispute. II further
appears from the Testimony that the
suits against James O'Leary were mat
tsFs OF public report. That Il was the In
tsEtion OF James O'Leary 20 dispose OF
this property for the purpose Of prevent
!ag the creditors from obtaining the fruits
~ their Judgment r. so manifest that 10
sill scarcely be denied by any one. The
Ret that the deed was made on the Gay
son which the Judgment was rendered
fat IL was held until after he made his
notion for a new trial: that re received
the amount OF money which he claims 10
have received without appTopriating u
on the Judgment. and the further facts
tha, prior to the making OF the deed he
stated 20 Witness Murdoch that the prop
erty was vat n his name. that he was
having trouble with Duvali. but Duvsii
would mover get a cent because he
to'Leary1 would fix II so that Duvaii
would not get anything. and that he was
rot going 20 pay the judgment place this
phase or thu case beyond a reradventure. .
TIE court here reviews the testimony I'm
Fsfsrauce 20 Daniel O'Leary. who had
stated 10 Witness Richardson that he had
purchased his brothers place: that ne
ranted 10 sell |; because he had got into
trouble with Duvall: that there was no
telling what the d--d court might de-
eiis." and that Jim didn't want 70 have
any property" and the court drew the
conclusion that the transfer was made
for ne purpose or avoiding the Judgment.
lie decision concludes In the following
haguags:
THE fac; that the respondent fOIearyp
took the pains 20 have the money paid
Al the lawyers oflca with all due for
mailty. and In such a manner as 10 call
he attention of the lawyer 20 the details
of TIE payment does not. IN our mind,
strengthen the respondents case. Ordi-
nasl'y IN a transaction between two
brothers hearing the intimate relation to
each other that the testimony shows
these brothers did. Il would not be consid-
cred necessary 70 make this demenstra-
ton The inference Is that II was done FOR
effect and 20 publish the bona fide ap-
pearancs % the transaction. As we view
the testimony, II plainly appears that the
transaction was a fraud upon these APP
pellants"