Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Ind. 196

Laney v. Laney

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1850

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1850-05-15

<p>A fraudulent conveyance is valid, as to tlie grantee, against tlio grantor and his lieirs.</p>

Relies on Drinkwater v. Drinkwater · Findley v. Cooley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1850-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1891

7 state decisions

3018501860187018801890decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1THIS was a bill in chancery filed by the heirs of Joseph Laney, deceased. Abraham, Laney is the defendant.

¶2The bill charges that said Joseph Laney, in his lifetime, conveyed a certain tract of land to said Abraham Laney, for the purpose of defrauding W. and M. Robins, the grantor’s creditors. The bill states that there was no consideration for the conveyance; that the grantee had full knowledge of the fraudulent object of the conveyance; and that the grantor afterwards paid the Robinses the debt due to them. Prayer, that the conveyance be decreed to be void.

¶3General demurrer to the bill. The demurrer was overruled, and a final decree rendered for the complainants.

¶4Held, that this decree must be reversed. The conveyance is valid as to the grantee, against the grantor and his heirs. Findley v. Cooley, 1 Blackf. 262. Drinkwater v. Drinkwater, 4 Mass. 354. — 1 Story’s Eq. Jur. 399.— Doe v. Roberts, 2 Barn. & Ald. 367.

¶5The decree is reversed with costs. Cause remanded with directions to the Circuit Court to sustain the demurrer. Costs here.

/2/ind/196 · .json · Public domain