Case Name: ANN MURPHY, Appellant, v. EDWARD W. CLAYTON, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1896-10-13
Citations: 114 Cal. 526
Docket Number: No. 15914
Parties: ANN MURPHY, Appellant, v. EDWARD W. CLAYTON, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 526–537

Head Matter:
[No. 15914.
Department Two.
October 13, 1896.]
ANN MURPHY, Appellant, v. EDWARD W. CLAYTON, Respondent.
Estates of Deceased Persons—Replevin against Administrator—Sale by Decedent—Change of Possession—Validity as to Creditors— Pleading—Evidence.—In an action of replevin against an administrator, for the recovery of horses, sold by the decedent in his lifetime to the plaintiff, which sale was good as between the parties, in order that the administrator may avoid the sale in the interest of creditors of the decedent upon the ground that there was not a sufficient delivery and change of possession, as against his creditors, the facts which it is claimed made the sale void as to creditors must be specially pleaded, and cannot be proved under an allegation of ownership of the decedent at the time of his death, nor under a denial of plaintiff’s ownership and right of possession.
Id.—Attack upon Sale of Decedent—Claims of Creditors—Insuf* ficienoy of Assets.—Before an administrator can attack a sale of personal property made by the decedent in his lifetime, in the interest of creditors, it must appear that there are creditors of the estate, and that there is an insufficiency of assets in the hands of the administrator to meet the claims of creditors which have been allowed, or who have recovered judgment against the estate.
Id.—Disallowed and Litigated Claims not Considered.—In determining whether there is or is not a sufficiency of assets in the hands of the administrator to meet the claims of creditors, claims which have been disallowed, and are being litigated by the administrator, cannot be considered; and if there is a sufficiency of assets to meet the allowed and determined claims of creditors, the administrator cannot recover any property transferred by the decedent in his lifetime, nor successfully defend a suit of replevin for such property in the interest of creditors.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. John Reynolds, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
George W. Lewis, and J. H. Campbell, for Appellant.
The sale and transfer of the horses in question here, mentioned in findings 5 and 6, whether void as to creditors or not, was a good and valid sale between the parties. (Visher v. Webster, 13 Cal. 58, 61; Crill v. Doyle, 53 Cal. 714.) The horses not being the property of Murphy at his death, formed no part of his estate. (Civ. Code, sec. 1384.) The answer counts upon Mur phy’s ownership of the horses at the time of his death, and he cannot recover without proof of such ownership. (Crill v. Doyle, supra.) Defendant cannot defend for creditors, under a general denial, nor recover for them, unless the estate is insolvent. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1589; Pomeroy’s Remedies and Remedial Rights, sec. 678; Bliss on Code Pleading, N. S., sec. 329; Glazer v. Clift, 10 Cal. 304.)
Kittredge & Kraft, for Respondent.
The proof of a transfer in fraud of creditors, was admissible under the general denial. (Grum v. Barney, 55 Cal. 254; Stephens v. Hallstead, 58 Cal. 193; Mason v. Vestal, 88 Cal. 356; 22 Am. St. Rep. 310.) If the denial was insufficient, the admission of evidence without objection, waived any defect in the pleading. (Scott v. Sierra Lumber Co., 67 Cal. 75; In re Doyle, 73 Cal. 568.) The sale was void, and no title passed; but the sale was' as to creditors as if no transfer had been made. (Civ. Code, sec. 3440; Cerf v. Phillips, 75 Cal. 185; Judson v. Lyford, 84 Cal. 507, 508; Mason v. Vestal, 88 Cal. 397; 22 Am. St. Rep. 310.) The same rule applies to any representative of the creditors. (Estate of Moore, 57 Cal. 442; Phelan v. Smith, 100 Cal. 165; Merrill v. Hurlburt, 63 Cal. 494; Brown v. Bank of Napa, 77 Cal. 546; Francisco v. Aguirre, 94 Cal. 185.)

Opinion:
The Court.
After due consideration of this cause in bank, we are satisfied with the conclusion reached and the opinion rendered when it was in Department; and, for the reasons given in said opinion, the judgment awarding the defendant the possession of the animals mentioned in the fifth finding is reversed, with directions to the superior court to enter judgment upon the findings in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of said animals, or for the value thereof, as found by the court, in case a delivery thereof to the plaintiff cannot be had.