Case Name: Clark W. Shippey vs. Michael Sullivan and Ellen Sullivan
Court: Wayne Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1884-05
Citations: 1 Howell N.P. 272
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clark W. Shippey vs. Michael Sullivan and Ellen Sullivan.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan nisi prius cases, decided by the state and federal courts in Michigan
Volume: 1
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
Wayne Circuit — In Chancery.
Clark W. Shippey vs. Michael Sullivan and Ellen Sullivan.
Fraudulent conveyance — Susbcmdand Wife as Witnesses — Proper Parties.
Complainant obtained judgment against defendant Michael Sullivan for a sum due on a building contract. Between the time the bill sued on accrued and the date of the judgment, Michael Sullivan made, executed and delivered to Ellen Sullivan, his wife, a deed of the property named in the building contract. After the delivery of the deed Michael Sullivan give a mortgage on such property for borrowed money in his own name, his wife joining in the mortgage.
The deed was filed for record before the judgment above referred to was rendered and before the levy thereon.
The bill in this case was filed to have the deed decreed to be subject to complainant’s levy, on the ground that the deed was given without consideration and in fraud of creditors.
Defendants demurred to the bill on the following grounds:
1. Because Michael Sullivan is not a juoper party, having no personal interest in the property conveyed.
2. Because the defendants are husband and wife, and the answer of defendants would be in contravention of section 5969 of the compiled laws of 1871, (How. Stat., 7546), which provides:
“A husband shall not be examined as a witness for or against his wife without her consent, nor the wife against the husband without his consent, etc.”
Complainant’s counsel claimed that the’ joinder of the defendants did not make them, or either of them, witnesses, and that they, in making answer, were not examined.
The bill called for an answer not under oath.
The following authorities were cited by complainant’s counsel on the argument of the demurrer :
Story’s Eq. Pl., sec. 216, a.
Gaylord vs. Kelshaw, 1 Wall., 81.
Sewell vs. Russel, 2 Paige, 175.
Ward et al. vs. Hollins et al., 14 Md., 158.
Lawrence vs. Bank, 35 N. Y., 320.
Beardslee vs. Foster, 36 N. Y., 561.
King vs. Martin, 2 Ves., Jr., 641.
Defendant’s counsel cited, among others, the following authorities:
Taylor vs. Webb, 54 Miss., 36.
Leach vs. Shilby, 58 Miss., 681.
Story’s Eq. Pl., sec. 231 etseq.
(May, 1884.)
Corliss & Andrus for Complainants.
Conch/, Maybvry & Luckin'/ for Defendants.

Opinion:
The Court,
Chambees, J.:
Overruled the demurrer.