Case Name: Gardinier vs. Otis and others
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1861-04-10
Citations: 13 Wis. 460
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gardinier vs. Otis and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 460–462

Head Matter:
Gardinier vs. Otis and others.
A purchase of property with intent to defraud the creditors of the vendor, is void as to such creditors, notwithstanding the vendee pays the full value of the property.
Where there is no evidence for the jury in support of an action, the court, on motion, should order a nonsuit.
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Kenosha County.
Tbe plaintiff, who was a married woman, sued tbe defendants, Otis, Randall and Tymeson, for unlawfully taking and converting to their own use 70 tons of bay and four bead of young cattle, which she claimed as her own separate property: Tbe defense was, tbat tbe property belonged to tbe plaintiff’s husband and her son Cornelius, and -bad been put into her hands by them for the purpose of defrauding the defendant Otis, to whom they were indebted at the time rent; and that the defendant Randall, as the deputy of Tymeson, who was sheriff, seized the property under an attachment duly issued against them, at the suit of Otis, for said debt. The plaintiff and several other witnesses were sworn for the purpose of proving that the property in controversy had been sold to her by her sons Cornelius and James, before it was seized on the attachment; but it appeared also by her own testimony, that she paid no money for the property at the time she bought it; that it was taken in payment of a debt which she alleged was due to her from Cornelius for money lent to him; that the hay was raised on a farm leased from Otis by her husband and Cornelius ; that she bought the hay in August, and the rent, being $90, was to fall due the first of October following; that. Cornelius told her he had consulted counsel about selling the stuff before he sold it to her; that she understood the hay ought to be moved off the farm; that it was moved off before the rent fell due; and “that it was in view of. the right of the landlord to take property for rent that she moved the hay off.” When the plaintiff’s evidence was closed, the circuit court nonsuited the plaintiff, on the ground that, being a married woman, the property sued for was that of her husband, and that there was no proper party plaintiff. The court afterwards made an order setting the nonsuit aside, and granting a new trial, ■ from which order ’the defendants appealed.
J. J. Pettit, for appellants.
Webster & Schoff, for respondent.
April 10.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Cole, J.
It seems to us that the circuit court very properly nonsuited the respondent, there being no evidence to go to the jury in support of her action, and consequently should have permitted the nonsuit to stand. The evidence discloses to our minds a very feeble and bald attempt to place the property of the (Jardiniere beyond the reach of their creditors. This we think is apparent from the whole testimony, and were we to assume — what it might be difficult to establish, even upon the statement which the re sPon(^en^ ma(^e as maimer in wbiob sbe acquired, tbe money — that tbe money was bers, and that sbe could do witb it as site liked, we still tbink tbe sale was fraudulent, made . . . . 7 witb tbe intent of placing it beyond tbe reach of Otis and other creditors, and that tbe respondent must have been privy to this design. Eor sbe testifies that her son Cornelius consulted counsel about selling tbe stuff before be sold to her, and that sbe moved tbe bay and other property off tbe farm during tbe absence of Otis, and before tbe rent fell due, in view of bis right as landlord to take tbe property for rent. All this is inconsistent witb a fair and honest business transaction. Sbe was not dealing in good faith when sbe (bought tbe property. Sbe knew that tbe sale was made by her sons to binder or defraud Otis. Therefore, if sbe bad paid a good consideration for tbe property, sbe could not bold it as against him. It is unnecessary £o dwell upon tbe relation of tbe parties to that sale to each other. Two sons but little over twenty-one years of age, living witb their parents upon a rented farm, sell tbe whole produce of that farm to their mother, receiving no pay at tbe time of tbe sale, and advising about removing tbe property away to place it beyond tbe reach of tbe landlord. These are not circumstances usually attending honest transactions.
Tbe order setting aside tbe nonsuit and granting a new trial, must be reversed.