Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-07-26
EverSOn V. Wood, ct al, MultnOmah
County,


Fred L. Everson, trustee of the es-
tate of H. E. Wood bankrupt, appel
liant, v eileen Wood, H. E. Wood, and
Security Savings & Trust Company,
corporation, respondents. Appeal
from the circuit court for Multnomah
county. The Hon. John B. Cleland,
Judge, Argued and submitted July
IL, 1911. F. L. Everson and w. G..
Hale (Everson & Pierce and Hale &
Mcconnell, on brief for appellant
B. S. Pague and w. P. LaRoche, on
brief. for respondents. Mcbride, J..
Affirmed.
This is a creditors suit brought to
subject the property alleged to be
traudulently held by respondent
Mrs. Glenn Wood to the payment of
her insolvent husbands debts.
During 1905 and 1906 respondent
II. b. Wood and A. j, Authors were
partners in the general building and
contracting business, under the firm
name OF Authors & Wood. In the
spring OF 1906 dissensions arose be-
tween them and the partnership was
ulssolVed, but no accounting was had
between the partners, each claiming
mat the other was indebted to him.
In July, 1906, H. E. Wood entered
INTO partnership with his brother,
Audrey Wood, but the firm was not
successful and the partnership was
dissolved in October of the sama
year, H. E, Wood was married 10
respondent Glenn Wood in Sentem-
ner, 1906. AT this time he was in
ueOt to other parties besides An
thors' whose claim was vet in dis
pute and unliquidated; and his wife
was the owner in her own right of
reai property Of the value of $4,000
ana mad 5000 in cash. Shortly after
IhlS Mrs. Wood began the contract
ing business, under the firm name of
H. E. Wood and Co. She furnished
tne money and credit needed To starr
the business and assisted to some av-
tent IN the details and in the work
Oh preparing estimates on bids and
collected money due the firm and
wood attended to mechanical details
ana Superintended the work
Inc evidence tends to show tbot
aIter the marriage. Wood nronosed
70 quit the contracting business and
Eo TO work as a laborer, in order 10
support his wife, but that She oh.
lected and proposed that She would
Eo INTO the contracting business her.
sen and risk her own means in tho
venture paving her husband s65 nar nor
| .,ohth TO work for her II is sbowr
| 'nat Wood is a very canabIa ,,a
Ghanlc, but that, owing IN Ioc, =,
BUSINESS ability and education ba
was never able to conduct tbe co,,
lVaCung business successfully Tn
| evidence also shows thar tbo -
"r ,s'l,Selhent was more successful
ana that I'M to the commencement ~ ~
,Ois suit at least $1,000 profits had
III lS'N two years after this ar
ranEement between II E. Wood and
nus wife had been entered into Au1
'uorS brought a suit against woos
ana secured a decree against hin, 80
NloeSSS, Wood became volnn+a m ~.
SanNrupt and upon his examination
oesore the referee in bankruptcy. an
oruer was made appointing plaintiS
trustee OF the estate and ORDERING
u'u TO bring this suit. Upon trial IN
tue circuit court there was n decrea
pealS '"i"''H ap-
Mcbride, J. The foregoing state
ment contains the material facts as
we we ma them, To attempt to give
,ne testimony or even syuonsis of
II IN detail would needlessly CON
sumo time and space. We are of the
opinion that the court below fonnd
correctly that Mrs. Glenn Wood was
not a party to any fraud against n
= woods creditors. There Is NO
lam lam here that her doing business
ouuer the name of H. E. Wood 4.
20, mlsled any creditor into dealing
with II. E, Wood personally. or exs
tending credit to him in the belief
that he was member Of the Arm
In fact, there is no suggestion that