Case Name: Vowinkel, Appellant, v. Moser
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1906-01-02
Citations: 213 Pa. 587
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 203
Parties: Vowinkel, Appellant, v. Moser.
Judges: Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 213
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
Vowinkel, Appellant, v. Moser.
Husband and wife — Loan by wife to husband — Transfer of property for loan —Bankruptcy.
In a proceeding by bill in equity by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover a leasehold transferred by the bankrupt to his wife in consideration of money loaned, the court below found as facts that the loan was of the wife’s own money, not received from her husband; that the transfer was on account of the loan and was made in good faith without intent to defraud; that it was not out of proportion to the debt; that the husband was solvent at that time and was not adjudicated bankrupt until more than a year later; and that it did not appear that any of his present creditors were creditors then. Held, that a decree dismissing the bill should be affirmed.
Argued Nov. 3, 1905.
Appeal, No. 203, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., No. 1, Dec. T., 1902, No. 861, dismissing bill in equity in case of Charles Vowinkel, trustee in bankruptcy of Fritz Moser v. Fritz Moser and Margaret Moser, his wife, and Emma Wolff.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Bill in equity to have declared void a transfer of property by a married woman to her husband. Before Collier, P. J.
The essential facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Error assigned was decree dismissing bill.
Charles II. Sachs, with him Benj. J. Hirshfield, for appellant.
Edward J. McKenna and J. Frank McKenna, for appellees, were not heard.
January 2, 1906:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The learned judge below found as facts that the loan by the wife to her husband was of her own money received from other sources than her husband ; that the transfer of the leasehold by him to her was on account of the loan, and was made in good faith without any intent to defraud; that it was not out of proportion to the debt; that he was solvent at that time and was not adjudicated bankrupt until more than a year later; and that it did not appear that .any of his present creditors were creditors then.
These findings ought to have ended the case.
Decree affirmed with costs.