Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-08-04

to the Com D3nN. ami or October -Oih, /
1883. the Company : we its deed therefor
t. the ~a,d +. Crane; on the 18th day of
May, 1892, f. Crane became suretv on an
agreement Of guaranty with the plaintiffs
upon which a Judgment was entered
against him Oh The Sth day of October,
1892, III favor of the plaintiffs for the sun
Of S}2l7. so, and costs. On July 9Th. 1892,
+. Crane made a grant, hargain and sale
deed to Mrs. Howard of the same lands;
the deed OF February 18th, 1876, to her be-
ing a quit claim deed.
Upon the Judgment rendered against
L. Crane in favor Of the Appellants eX- !
e~cution was issued and returned un>atis-
fed. Upon the trial of the action the
court submitted to a jury the following
question:: "W as the deed Of E. Crane to
Mrs. Amelia ii. Howard Of the s. L. Of
The ). f. / Of Sec. q. dated July 9TH, 1892
made with the intent on the part of said
f. Crane to hinder, delay or detraud his
creditors, including the plaintiffs here
inn" 70 wAich question the jury ans
wered Nc" In its findings OF facts the
court adopted the verdict of The Jury and
specifically nund in favor of the Res
pontents up n all issues made.
Under the assignment Of errors Coun-
SCI for Appellants contend that the evi-
deuce shows that ttese couveyAnc+s were
made for the purpo>e Of d~etrauding +.
! Cranes creditors, including Appellants
that they were without considerations
mere voluntary conyeyance~-thaJ there
Was never any changes in the possession
.l ~ 4- -. = tN.
couVtyamye~: mat the gramtor, +. Crane,
continued after the c~onveyauces to hold
The lands adversely ia any claim of right
Of the Respondents from the time of the
conveyance uutil the commencement of
tie Action-that the execution Of the con-
yeyauces practically stripped +. Crane Of
AL property subject TO execution, and
therefore as a matter Of law, were void as
against existing and subsequent credi-
tors and should he SGT aside. These facts
were not undisputcd, and upon the trial
The court specifically found upon the is
sues All the facts in favor Of the RespOn-
dent, aud adversely to Appellants claim.
The record Gjscloses evidence both in IA
vor OF and against the contention of the
Appellants. 1t was the duty of the trial
court to find the true facts from the eyi-
dence. and where such findings rave been
made upon a record showing a material
conflict in the evidence, this court will
not disturb such findings or a decree
founded thereon. 1t therefore becomcs
unnecessary to discuss the rules OF law
controlling such cases and so exhaust
lively presented in the briefs.
But one other question remains to Dc
considered. The Appellants claim that
the second conveyance under date of
July It'll. 1892, to Mrs. Howard for the
. sam lands contained in the quit-claim
l deed of February 9th, 1876, is shown to
: have been voluntary and without any
consideration. and as the quit-claim deed
l did not convey the after acquired title OF
F, Crane fros the c. ?. Railroad Com
pany to the lands, that the lands were
{ therefore subject to the payment OF Ap-
1 pellants' judgment, and the court should
have 50 found and decree3. At the time
l of the execution of the qnit-claim deed
in 1876, f. Crane had a coHtract for the
purchase of the land from the Central
l Pacific Railroad Company, they being
d within the twenty mile limit of the grant
X to that Company and the odd Numbered
e sections. While it is true that the Cen.
trail Pacific Railroad Company did not
receive the L. ). patent for the lands, ye
|. as a matter of law The title thereto hac
: passed to the Company al the date Of ths
/. grant and became vested at the time thu
y route of the road was definitely fixed,
+ long time prior to the execution of tn,
II quit-claim deed to Mrs. Howard.
" Deseret Salt Co. We. Tarpey, l42 U :.
24s.
Ii The conveyance Of this and by tn
quit-claim deed for a aluable cOnsidera
ton. and the surrender Of the possession
thereof te Mrs. Howard certainly Opsrat
ed as a transfer Of the equitable till
re thereto- and the subsequent ~ransfsr il
Il 1892 therefor came be said to have heel
a mere voluntary conveyance wlthOu
p consideration Mrs. Howard under tn
: facts could have compelled the convey
ance in a court of equity. A transte
- which the Law would compel p party t
u. make is not voluntary.
Bump on Fraudulent Conveyance
p 249.
II Neither is the transfer hy the holder
sc the legal title to the equitable owner. q
Il though without pecuniary consiieratio
u a voluntary conveyance. and therefor
fraudulent as to creditors.
IS Scheyer vs.. Scott, 134 L. :. 400;
Isl CottrelI W. Smith. IS \. w. $50.
IS The judgment and order appealed froI
III VIII therefore be affirmed.
ny We concur: B0nnlield, c..
~ Belknap. J.
ed Filed August 2, 1899.
EUGENE How ELL.
ad Secretary of State and Ex-of icio Gle
2n- of the Supreme Court.
ew Filed with printer for publicati
led August ,, 1884.
.ng EUGENE HOWELL