Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 Wis. 272

Cunningham v. Eagan

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1899

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1899-02-21

<p> Debtor and creditor: Fraudulent conveyances: Garnishment. </p> <p>The principal defendants owed their father about $2,100, and others about $6,000. To secure the debt to their father one of them gave him a mortgage on a stock of goods worth about $1,500, but remained in possession. The other transferred, by absolute bill of sale, and delivei’ed to the father a stock of goods for an expressed consideration of $1,552, which was about their actual value, though their inventory price was about $2,000. This transfer was claimed by the son to be a payment pro tanto, but by the father to be as security only. Afterwards plaintiff obtained a judgment against the sons, and garnished the father. Held, that the transaction stated did not justify an inference of fraud which would render the father liable as garnishee in respect to the goods delivered to him.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1900

1 state decisions

Relies on Carey v. Dyer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1899-02-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dodge, J.

¶1The facts are without dispute, except as to whether Barney Eagan’s transfer was absolute or -as security. The fact of the indebtedness from Barney and Michael Eagan to their father in about the sum of $2,100 is clear. The only property of either which is shown to have actually come to the possession of the garnishee is Barney’s stock, which, at inventory price, did not exceed $2,000, and was of actual value about $1,550. Its transfer to the father was accompanied by immediate possession; and whether, as testified by Barney, it was an absolute conveyance in payment jpro tanto, or, as understood by the garnishee, was a delivery as security, there is nothing in the transaction to justify inference of fraud. It was less than the amount of the debt, so that no surplus could remain in his hands to be subject to garnishment. Michael’s stock was not in the garnishee’s possession, but was subject to levy by the plaintiff. Of course, as against such levy, the garnishee’s mortgage could stand only for the balance of the $2,100 debt not paid by Barney’s transfer,— $1,550 if absolute, or the proceeds of the stock if as security. There is, therefore, no evidence tending to prove either that the garnishee is indebted to, or has property in his possession or under his control belonging to, the principal defendants. Carey v. Dyer, 97 Wis. 554.

¶2By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

/102/wis/272 · .json · Public domain