Bull v. Bray

Citations

• 89 Cal. 286
• 13 L.R.A. 576
• 26 P. 873
• 1891 Cal. LEXIS 813

Syllabus

<p>Findings—Probative Facts — Ultimate Fact — Review on Appeal.— Where probative facts only are found, yet if the ultimate fact flows as a necessary conclusion therefrom, the findings are sufficient; but in order to warrant the appellate court in inferring an ultimate fact from probative facts, it must inevitably follow from the facts found.</p> <p>Id. — Deed to Defraud Creditors — Fraudulent Intent — Insolvency— Want of Consideration. —In an action by a judgment creditor to set aside deeds of gift made by the judgment debtor to his wife as being void as against prior creditors, it is necessary specifically to find that the deeds were made with a fraudulent intent, in order to sustain a judgment for the plaintiff, and such finding cannot be inferred from findings that the deeds were without consideration, and that the judgment debtor was insolvent when he made them, though without full knowledge of his actual financial condition, and that by the making of them he hindered, delayed, and defrauded the plaintiff in the collection of his debt.</p> <p>Id. — Question of Fact — Inference of Fact — Appeal. — Under the code of this state, the question of fraudulent intent is one of fact, and not of law; and though such intent might properly be inferred anm found as a fact by the trial court from the other facts found, to wit, msmtvencyañcf want of consideration, yet such inference or finding cannot bejfcade by the appellate court.</p> <p>Id. —Knowledge of Insolvency —- Disputable Presumptions—Inference of Fraudulent Intent —■ Rebuttal. — The presumptions that every man knows the condition of his own business, and that every man intends the consequences of his acts, are disputable, and an inference of the fact of fraudulent intent from a deed of gift by an insolvent debtor to his wiie, which might rest upon those presumptions, is overcome by a finding that he was ignorant of the fact of his insolvency.</p>