Lachman v. Martin

Citations

• 139 Ill. 450
• 28 N.E. 795

Syllabus

<p>1. Married woman—control of separate property—employment of husband as agent. Since the act of 1874 a married woman may have her-own separate property, and make contracts and do business as a feme sole, and may avail herself of the services and agency of her husband in the conduct of her business or management of her property, without necessarily subjecting the profits arising from his management to the-claims of his creditors.</p> <p>2. Fraududent conveyance—concealing assets—transactions between husband and wife scrutinised. An insolvent debtor can not use his wife’s name as a mere device to cover up and keep from his creditors the assets and profits of a business which is in fact his own. Transactions;” between husband and wife having the appearance of being fraudulent will be closely scrutinized by the courts.</p> <p>3. It is a question of fact, to be determined from all the circumstances of the case, whether or not a husband is carrying on his own business or is merely managing his wife’s business. It must clearly appear that the wife is the bona fide owner of the capital invested in the business, and that the accumulations which result from the conduct of the business are the legitimate outcome of the investment of her property.</p> <p>4. In this case, which was upon creditor’s bill, to subject certain real estate held in the name of the debtor’s wife, to the payment of the husband’s debts, the facts and circumstances are stated, which show that the debtor’s business was carried on in his wife’s name, to cover up the same, and place his means, earnings and profits beyond the-reach of his creditors, and that in fact the means of conducting the .business was furnished by him, and that the large gains from the business were the product of his own shrewdness and skill as a gambler,, and not the result of his wife’s investment.</p>