Case Name: Schwenn, Respondent, vs. Schwenn and others, Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1918-01-05
Citations: 166 Wis. 420
Docket Number: 
Parties: Schwenn, Respondent, vs. Schwenn and others, Appellants.
Judges: Vinje, J. I concur in the foregoing opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Winslow.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 166
Pages: 420–430

Head Matter:
Schwenn, Respondent, vs. Schwenn and others, Appellants.
December 4, 1917
January 5, 1918.
Conspiracy to defeat antenuptial contract: Fraudulent transfer of property: Cause of action: Parties: Executors and administrators.
1. A complaint charging that defendants and plaintiff’s divorced husband conspired together to produce a breach of liis ante-nuptial contract with plaintiff by fraudulently disposing of all his property, and that they consummated such conspiracy so that prior to his death all his property had been acquired by defendants fraudulently and without consideration, and at his death nothing was left with which to pay the amount which then became due to plaintiff on said contract, is held to state a cause of action for damages. Field v. Siegel, 99 Wis. 606, distinguished.
2. A demurrer to such complaint on the ground of a defect of parties plaintiff, in that plaintiff was not the executor or administrator of the estate, was properly overruled.
Appeal from an order of tbe circuit court- for Dane county: E. Rat Stevews, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Tbe complaint in tbis action sets forth substantially tbe following facts: That tbe plaintiff and Eritz Scbwenn intermarried September 30, 1902; that prior to tbe marriage a written antenuptial contract of marriage settlement was made between tbe parties, a copy of wbicb contract is attached to tbe complaint; that on October 18, 1909, in an action by tbe plaintiff against said Eritz Scbwenn judgment of absolute divorce was entered in favor of plaintiff; that in said judgment it was determined that Eritz Scbwenn was tbe owner of notes, mortgages, and securities of tbe value of $10,000; that an appeal was taken to tbe supreme court from said judgment, and that upon said appeal tbe judgment was modified by awarding plaintiff $1,000 as division of property and further providing that such judgment should not operate to bar or in any way disturb plaintiff’s rights to tbe sum of $500 or any sum which plaintiff might be entitled to under the terms of the antenuptial contract between the parties; that the antenuptial contract provided for the payment of $500 in case plaintiff survived said Eritz Schwenn; that the amount due under the antenuptial contract has not been paid, or any part thereof; that for the purpose of cheating and defrauding plaintiff and hindering, delaying, and preventing her from recovering the amount so due her, or any part thereof, the defendants and said Eritz Schwenn entered into a conspiracy to fraudulently transfer, dispose of, or cancel the notes, mortgages, and securities so held by said Eritz Schwenn, the same constituting all the property of which he was the owner or possessed, and that he was possessed of no other means of any kind out of which the claim of plaintiff or other creditors can be satisfied or collected; that a portion of said mortgages and notes were personal obligations of some of the defendants herein; that in accordance with the purpose of said conspiracy the defendants and Eritz Schwenn fraudulently and without consideration caused said notes and mortgages so held against some of the defendants to be satisfied or surrendered and defendants collected and retained the proceeds of other notes, mortgages, or securities held by him, such proceeds being turned over to and accepted by them for the fraudulent purpose aforesaid, with the intent on the part of said Eritz Schwenn to escape the payment to plaintiff of the amount due upon said antenuptial contract; that defendants were fully cognizant of the intent and purpose of Eritz Schwenn and shared and participated therein; that as a result of said fraudulent acts of defendants and Fritz Schwenn all property of which he was the owner and of which he was possessed was, prior to his death, disposed of to and acquired by the defendants; that Eritz Schwenn left no property out of which plaintiff’s claims under said ante-nuptial contract can be paid or satisfied in whole or in part, or out of which the claims of other creditors of said Eritz Schwenn can be satisfied, and other creditors have been and will thereby be prevented from recovering of the estate of said Fritz Schwenn any portion of their claims or demands against said Fritz Schwenn; that the property so unlawfully acquired by and turned over to defendants herein for the fraudulent purposes aforesaid is more than sufficient to satisfy the claims in favor of plaintiff or other creditors of Fritz Schwenn; that through the consummation of said conspiracy the plaintiff has been deprived of any remedy against the estate of Fritz Schwenn under the contract before referred to and has been thereby damaged in the sum of $500 with interest as provided by law from the date of the death of Fritz Schwenn; that Fritz Schwenn died in May, 1912, at Minneapolis, Minnesota. Judgment is demanded against the defendants for the sum of $500 with interest and costs.
The defendants demurred to the complaint, first, on the ground that there was a defect of parties plaintiff, in that the complaint shows the plaintiff is not the administrator or executor of the estate of Fritz Schwenn; and second, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and from an order overruling it this appeal was taken.
F. K. Shuttleworth of Madison, for the appellants.
For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of Grady & Farnsworth of Portage.

Opinion:
NeewiN, J.
We have set forth the substance of the complaint in the statement of facts. It clearly states that the defendants combined and conspired to produce a breach of the contract obligations of Fritz Schwenn to the plaintiff and prevent her from receiving the benefits provided for her in the contract, and that they succeeded in producing a breach of the contract, to the injury of plaintiff in the sum of $500. The facts set forth in the complaint include all the elements which have been held in several decisions of this court to be essential in an action for damages for an executed conspiracy to injure. Martens v. Reilly, 109 Wis. 464, 84 N. W. 840; Patnode v. Westenhaver, 114 Wis. 460, 90 N. W. 467; Randall v. Lonstorf, 126 Wis. 147, 105 N. W. 663; White v. White, 132 Wis. 121, 111 N. W. 1116; McLennan v. Church, 163 Wis. 411, 158 N. W. 73; and other cases in this court.
In the instant case upon the allegations of the complaint there was a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, to wit, to produce a breach of a contract obligation, accomplishment of that purpose, and resulting damage to the person designed to be injured.
In White v. White, supra, the rule applicable to such a situation is thus in effect stated: Any combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, such as to breach a contract, by any means which is carried out is an actionable conspiracy for which those participating must respond in damages to the person injured.
Counsel for appellants relies upon Field v. Siegel, 99 Wis. 605, 75 N. W. 397, where it is held that a general creditor cannot maintain an action against his debtor and others with whom he conspired to place all his property beyond the reach of his creditors, to recover damages. Much that is said in the opinion does not, seem to apply to that case and certainly does not apply to the instant case. In Field v. Siegel the conspiracy entered into was to defraud creditors generally, while in the case at bar the action is against the defendants who entered into a conspiracy for the express purpose of breaching the contract between Eritz Sehwenn and plaintiff and preventing her from recovering the fruits thereof, and which did in fact accomplish that purpose. In Field v. Siegel it is suggested that it is essential to the recovery of damages for a consummated conspiracy to injure that the damages "must be a clear and necessary consequence of the fraudulent act and of a character to be clearly defined and ascertained." There can be no question but that such elements are clearly alleged in the case at bar. It. is also said in the Field-Siegel Case, "No action lies for simply conspiring to do an unlawful act. It is the doing the act itself, and the resulting actual damage to the plaintiff, which furnish the ground of the action." This statement is good law, but the precise situation so stated to be essential to such an action as this is clearly alleged in the complaint in the instant case and seems to have been in the case with which the court was dealing.
Again the court said in Field v. Siegel, "An act which, if done by one alone, constitutes no ground of an action on the case, cannot be made the ground of such action by alleging it to have been done by and through a conspiracy of several." That was expressly said not to be the law of this state in Slate ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 85 N. W. 1046. It will be seen that the Field Case as treated by the court is quite different from the instant case, as appears from the reasoning of the court in that case.
The holding here is that where, as in the present case, there is charged a conspiracy to defeat or breach one specific contract, or certain specific contracts, by the fraudulent transfer of the debtor's property, an action for damages lies against the conspirators. Whether such an action would lie where the conspiracy is to defraud, creditors generally, as in Field v. Siegel, supra, is not decided.
As regards the first ground of demurrer it is only necessary to say that it is wholly without merit. The action was not brought against Fritz Schwenn or his estate, but against the defendants who conspired with him and obtained his property. Further discussion seems unnecessary.
Our conclusion is that the complaint must be sustained, upon the authority of many cases decided by this court since Field v. Siegel, supra.
The order of the court below must therefore be affirmed, and anything said in Field v. Siegel, supra, in conflict with this opinion must be deemed overruled.
By the Court. — The order appealed from is affirmed.