Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

28 Minn. 365

Farnham v. Kennedy

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 17, 1881

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1881-10-17

The plaintiffs, partners as Earnham & Love joy, having recovered a judgment against defendant James A. Kennedy, brought this action in the district court for Kamsey county, to subject to their execution certain lands conveyed by Kennedy to defendant Trussed, and by the-latter to Kennedy’s wife. ' The consideration on which plaintiffs’ judgment was recovered was an endorsement, by Kennedy on a note dated May 15, 1878.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-10-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1941

5 state decisions

201881189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Berry, J.

¶1The purpose of this action is to subject certain lands to execution, upon a judgment recovered by plaintiffs against defendant James A. Kennedy. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the lands were conveyed by said Kennedy to defendant Trussell, and by Trussell to Mrs. Kennedy, in fraud of the plaintiffs, as Kennedy’s creditors. There was testimony in the case reasonably tending to show that Kennedy purchased the land for his wife, and as her agent; that the cash payment for the same, as well as two deferred payments, were made with her money and separate property; that Kennedy was indebted to his wife in a sum considerably exceeding the unpaid portions of the purchase-money, for which he had given his note; that the title was originally taken in Kennedy’s name, without her knowledge or consent; and that the conveyance from Kennedy to Trussell was made for the purpose, expressly understood and agreed upon between her and Kennedy, that Trussell should convey to her, so that the title should come into her name in pursuance of, and to carry out, the design of the original purchase. This was sufficient to warrant the trial court in finding, in effect, that the conveyances mentioned were not fraudulent as respected the plaintiffs, and that the action should be dismissed; and it follows that the testimony as to Kennedy’s insolvency, and the rulings and finding of the court in reference thereto, and to Mrs. Kennedy’s knowledge of the liability of her husband to the plaintiffs, and in denying the motion for an amendment of the complaint, are not practically important as respects the general result of the case.

¶2The question as to the conversation between Kennedy and his wife in relation to what was to be done with the land at the time of the conveyance to Trussell, and the question, who paid the notes given for the deferred payments before mentioned ? were properly allowed. The answers elicited tended to show that the original design of a purchase for Mrs. Kennedy, and with her means, was consistently adhered to, and to disprove any purpose of fraud upon Kennedy’s creditors.

¶3Order affirmed.

/28/minn/365 · .json · Public domain