Case Name: William Leppig v. A. Rudolph Bretzel and Amelia Bretzel
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1882-04-25
Citations: 48 Mich. 321
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Leppig v. A. Rudolph Bretzel and Amelia Bretzel.
Judges: Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
William Leppig v. A. Rudolph Bretzel and Amelia Bretzel.
Preference among creditors — Payment to wife.
A husband, who is, in good faith, in debt to his wife has a right to pay her claim in preference to the claims of other creditors; and if this-is done by having land deeded to her, for which he exchanged a stock of goods which had in turn been bought with the proceeds of land which had been purchased in part with her money, the deed cannot be set aside on a bill in aid of an execution against the husband.
Appeal from Kent.
Submitted April 20.
Decided April 25.
Creditor’s bill. Defendants appeal.
Reversed.
John A. Fain-field for complainant
Stuart <& Sweet for defendants.

Opinion:
Marston, J".
There is an entire absence of any showing of fraud in this case. It clearly appears that the defendant Amelia Bretzel had means of her own, as early as 1860, which she loaned to Mr. Desenberg or the firm of which he-was a member, and that from time to time out of her own earnings she added to the same — so that in 1863 or 1861 it amounted to about six hundred dollars. Her husband then purchased certain real estate, this money was used in part to pay for it, and the title thereto taken in his name.
This property was afterwards sold and the money put into the grocery business, which was carried on in the 'husband's name. The whole amount which defendant Budolph had from his wife was $1200. This was a loan to him without interest, and when lie sold the stock of groceries a part of the consideration therefor was the lands in controversy deeded to his wife. That the defendant had the right to thus pay the debt he was owing his wife in preference to other creditors is not an open question in this court. While it may be that such transactions, owing to the relations existing between the parties, should be looked upon with suspicion and closely scrutinized, yet this case we consider clear and free from suspicion.
The decree must be reversed and the bill of complaint dismissed with costs of both courts.
Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.