Chapman v. Farrell

Citations

• 96 Kan. 659
• 153 P. 511
• 1915 Kan. LEXIS 459

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Fraudulent Conveyances — Hindering and Delaying Creditors — Evidence. In a transfer of property from a husband to his wife where it was charged that it was done to hinder, delay and defeat the enforcement of a judgment against the vendor or the collection of a debt the facts and circumstances of the transaction are to be closely scrutinized to see that it is free from fraud; and if the evidence shows.that the sale was made by him to hinder and delay creditors it amounts to a fraud on his part, and if she had knowledge of his purpose or of facts and circumstances from which such knowledge may be inferred and cooperated with him in carrying out the purpose the transfer is invalid as to her.</p> <p>2. Same — Adequate Consideration — Good Faith Required. It is not enough that she may have paid him a sum.equal to the value of the property transferred but it must have been made in good faith; the element of good faith is as essential to a valid transfer as an adequate consideration.</p> <p>3. Same — No Error in Instruction. No error was committed in instructing the jury that direct and positive evidence of fraud is not required or in telling the jury that:</p> <p>“It is rare, indeed, that fraud can be proved by direct and positive testimony of reliable witnesses. It is an almost invariable rule that it can only be deduced from a consideration of many facts and circumstances; from the conduct, statements, dealings and surroundings of the parties, from their relationship to each other, and from the many little doings of the parties which indicate their secret motives, which as a rule are studiously concealed from those it is intended to wrong. Any unusual or extraordinary methods, if any, which they adopted in conducting business; any secrecy or concealment in business and. any unusual methods or acts connected with the transactions in question in the case are proper to be considered in determining whether fraud in fact exists in connecti