Armstrong, Cator & Co. v. Lachman

Citations

• 84 Va. 726
• 6 S.E. 129
• 1888 Va. LEXIS 137

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraudulent Conveyances—Proof.—Whilst no rule can be laid down as to the extent of evidence required to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, it must satisfy the chancellor’s conscience, and it may be, and generally must be, circumstantial. Witz, &c., v. Osburn, 83 Va., 227.</p> <p>2. Idem—Case at bar.—Husband, as wife’s agent, bought goods by false statements as to his means. Within three months they granted all the goods in her store at M. in trust to secure alleged debts to her father and brother. Latter had no visible means and returned on oath his property for taxation at five dollars. Nearly seven thousand dollars’ worth of goods down to about one thousand five hundred dollars, in her store had disappeared, and also numerous trunks of husband. Father had carried numerous new trunks full of something and had shipped large quantities of goods, out of his line, by rail to his store in N. C., and plaintiff’s clerks had identified those goods sold by them to-defendant:</p> <p>Held:</p> <p>Evidence ample to stamp the trust deed as fraudulent.</p>