Court Opinion

ID: 9829972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:46:03.57836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:09.824436
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted that the fraudulent purpose in executing the deed by Chokas and wife to Kastoleas was not made an issue or sought to be established as a defense by the defendants in the court below, and, hence, that we erred in so ruling, particularly in *668view of the fact that the trial court made no finding on the issue and that there is evidence from which a contrary finding- might be inferred.
But, as pointed out in our original opinion, the plaintiffs distinctly alleged that the purpose in the execution of the deed by Chokas and wife was to prevent the sale of the property to pay a “then existing indebtedness.” No other purpose was disclosed by pleading or proof, and. Mrs. Wilbanks (née Chokas) herself introduced in evidence Kastoleas’ statement that “you (Mrs. Wilbanks) know he (Peter Chokas) made the deed out on account of not paying his debts.” Mrs. Wil-banks while testifying did not deny the fact alleged in her petition and stated to her by Kastoleas, or deny that she knew such to be the fact.
This being the state of the record, we did not and do not conceive it to be our duty to search the statement of facts for circumstances which may inferentially tend to rebut the fraud referred to, and because thereof remand the case for determination of the issue.
Motion overruled.