Case Name: William H. Waldby v. James P. Howell and another
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1874-10-30
Citations: 30 Mich. 483
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Waldby v. James P. Howell and another.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
William H. Waldby v. James P. Howell and another.
BUI in aid of execution: Case made by the bill not sustained by the proofs. The case made by the bill in this case, which is one in aid of execution to reach certain lands claimed to have been conveyed by defendant to his wife in fraud of complainant’s rights as a creditor, is held not sustained by the proofs.
Submitted on briefs October 23.
Decided October 30.
Appeal in Chancery from Hillsdale Circuit.
Knickerbocker & March and L. N. Keating, for complainant.
Martin H. Webb and James S. Galloway, for defendants.

Opinion:
Graves, Ch. J.
The complainant recovered judgment in the circuit court in June, 1870, against the defendant, James P. Howell, for one hundred and sixty-eight dollars and five cents, and •caused an execution to be issued and levied on certain lands which he claimed were justly subject to his debt.
The title of record stood in the name of the defendant Emily, the wife of James. It had formerly been in him, •and the complainant filed the bill in aid of his execution and asked that certain conveyances transferring the property to the wife might be declared fraudulent and void as against his execution, and that the title might be declared in the defendant (James P. Howell) for the purpose of complainant, as judgment and execution creditor. The defendants answered and denied the equity of the bill. Proofs were taken on both sides, and the court, on final hearing, dismissed the bill, and complainant appealed. Several points of law are mentioned in the briefs, but as the case may be decided on the facts, we need not allude to the legal questions. We do not deem it needful to make any disquisition on the evidence. We are satisfied that the complainant's case is not sustained by the facts, and that the decree-below was right and should be affirmed, with costs.
The other Justices concurred.