Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Conn. 238

Clark v. Fuller

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 15, 1872

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1872-03-15

Bill for a foreclosure; brought to the Superior Court for the county of New London. The following facts were found by the court. The note was for $6,000, executed by Erastus 0. Andrew to Julia C. Clark, dated December 28th, 1868, and was secured by-a mortgage oí the same date. Julia C. Clark was at the time the wife of Addison L. Clark, the petitioner. She had since died, and the petition was brought by him as her administrator.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1995

6 state decisions

201872188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Butler, 0. J.

¶1We have bad no hesitation in respect to the advice which should be given in this case. It is very clear upon the facts that the petitioner’s intestate, Mrs. Clark, never had any title to the note and mortgage in question, as against the creditors of E. 0. Andrew, or the respondent who represents them. It is distinctly found that the note and mortgage were made by Andrew for the fraudulent purpose of covering up the mortgaged property, and that A. L. Clark, the husband of the petitioner’s intestate, transacted the business with Andrew, without the knowledge of his wife, but with full knowledge of the fraud, and. with the intent to aid and assist in committing it. It was not the intention of the parties that the note should vest in Mrs. Clark, or be delivered to her, or be holden for her benefit, unless it became necessary in order to consummate the fraud. ' It is immaterial that Mrs. Clark did not know of the fraud, for no effect can be given to the transaction without holding A. L. Clark to have been her agent, and in that cáse the knowledge of the agent would be the knowledge of the principal. Bank of New Milford v. Town of New Milford, 36 Conn., 94. It is of no importance whether under the circumstances her acceptance of the mortgage can be presumed or not, for if she had no title to the note, the petitioner can take nothing by his petition. Nor is it important what agreement was made between Clark and Andrew as to the passing of money by the former to the latter. The import of the word “ passed” in 'the finding, taken in connection with the other facts found, is, that the money and property were delivered to Andrew colorably, and not to be retained by him as a loan ; but however this jnay be, it is sufficient, as against this representative of creditors, some of whom were creditors at the time of the transaction, that the fraudulent intent contemplated by the statute in relation to *241fraudulent conveyances, existed, and was the governing motive of both parties to the transaction..

¶2For these reasons we advise that the bill be dismissed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
/39/conn/238 · .json · Public domain