Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-06-23
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
lExcluslveiy for vlrsinian- Pllot.)
WEBB ". ATKINSON.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
April IL. 1899.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
April IL. 1880.
AN ADMINISTRATORS MAY SUE IN
TESTATES WIDOW AND GILL
DREN TO RECOVER PROPERTY
FRAUDULENTLY CONVEYED By
INTERSTATE TO THEM.
THE LAW PRESUMGS FRAUD IN y
CONVEYANCE BY AN -NSOLNENT
TO HIS RELATIVES WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION.
INSOLVENCY MAY BE PROVED BY
GENERAL EPUTATlON.
AGREEMENT BY INSOLVENT
GRANTEE TO PAY INCUM-
ORANGES NOT INCURRED BY
GRANTOR is NO CONSIDERA-
TON FOR THE CONVEYANCE.
This was n suit by Webb, admlnistra-
tor OF Atkinson, to recover from his
widow and children certain land con-
Veyed to them by ntestate and TO de-
clare the conveyances void. There WAS
a. judgment for plaintiff and defend
ants appealed.
The court says:
If the legal title to the Graham land
and the Won Ruck land had been III
them I'm fraud of his creditors to his
wife. there could be no doubt that sec
ton 14i6 of the Code would apply, and
that the plaintiff administrator, could
maintain his action at law, and have
them sold and converted into assets. If
Matt Atkinson were living, his credi-
tors could not proceed to sell these
lands under execution, and acquire IT,
tle~to them I'm that way, for the reason
that the legal title was not in Matt
and the statute of IL l1liZ. would not
apply. But the fact that he bought
and had others to convey to his Wife,
is as much n fraud upon his creditors
ms If he had owned the lands. and con-
veyed them himself: and while, for
technical reasons, n court OF law would
not reach this fraud, Il court OF equity
would. Tho only difficulty, then, is the
technical one that the fraud in one
case Is reached at law, under the stat
ute of IL Eliz., while In the other case
1t is reached in court of equity or a
court exercising equitable jurisdiction.
The fraud upon the creditors is the
same rs If he had conveyed the land
himself; the right of the creditors to
have 1t subjected to the payment of
their debts Is the same; ana the de-
PENDANT has no more right to hold this
property, so frauducnuy conveyed to
her, from the creditors OF her insolvent
husband than If he had conveyed it to
her. The plaintiff is so far the repre-
sentative of the creditors of his insol-
vents estate, under our laws as they
now stand, as TO authorize him to fol-
low these lands, in court of equity,
into the hands OF the fraudulent donee.
and TO have them converted into assets
for the payment OF intestate's debts.
1.-THE court then discusses the facts
and proceeds.1
Taking these facts 10 be true-and the
jury have found them to be true-they
develop and uncover 4 most palpa BILE
fraud. But defendants complain of
the charge Of the court, ana file many
exceptions. in which II is contended
that the charge contains erroneous
propositions of law; that it expresses
opinion upon questions of fact: and
that 1t decides issues of fact, which
should have been left to the Jury. and
have been decided by them. Waile the
charge was heroic, we are of the opin-
ion that Is was fair to the defendants.
1t was given in a trial demanding he
roic treatment, and should not be con
demned on that account, il it was
fair to the defendants. 1t seem TO lis
that the plaintiffs case might have
rested here. The money being back In
the hands of Matt. the insolvent debtor
and recognized as his by the fraudulent
grantee. 1t then became a question as
~ nc NOuiu give II TO MS Wife
or not. AS the payment of the Cart
nell debt was in fact gift to her of
that amount, the purchase of the Won
Kuck or McGrew place by him, and
having the title made to his wife. was
O. gift to her. The balance Of this Whit
tier land money, left in her hands
belonged to her insolvent husband and
she has no right to hold it from his
creditors. She had no right to invest
this money In the Bland lot or the Car
ter lot; and as the money with which
she paid for them belongs to her hus-
Dands estate, the equitable title vested
in his heir, for the benefit of his cre;i-
tors, and made her a trustee. But the
judge told the jury that if Matt Ntllin-
son, being nsolvent or greatly embar
raised with debt made a conveyance
or the Whittier lands to these two sons