Moore v. Wood
Citations
- 100 Ill. 451
- 1881 Ill. LEXIS 117
Syllabus
<p>1. FrauduiiEnt conveyance—to hinder and delay creditors—secret trust. A debtor can not convey real estate to another, to be held, wholly or in part, in secret trust for himself, so as to cut off the rights of existing creditors;—for although such a transaction may be upon a valuable consideration, yet it lacks the element'of good faith. While it professes to be an absolute conveyance on its face, there is a concealed agreement between the parties to it inconsistent with its terms, securing a benefit to the grantor at the expense of those he owes. A trust thus secretly created, whether so intended or not, is a fraud on creditors, because it places beyond their reach a valuable right, and gives” to the debtor the beneficial enjoyment of what rightfully belongs to them.</p> <p>2. Where the secret trust reserves to the grantor future support, the gist of the objection to the transaction consists, not in the amount to be paid to the grantor on that account, but in the fact that the promise of future support forms part of the consideration as an inducement to the transfer. Where it is shown that the present consideration is inadequate tp satisfy his debts, whatever may be the amount secured to the debtor, the law, instead of endeavoring to determine what part of the consideration is money or other property, and what part is to be paid in future support of the grantor, and holding the grantee responsible for the latter sum, will treat the conveyance as a nullity, as between the grantee and the creditors of the grantor, and hold the property liable for their claims.</p> <p>3. Same—evidence in rebuttal. Evidence is admissible, however, upon the question of fact whether a secret trust really does exist. If the future ' support provided for was a mere gratuity tendered by the grantee, then it would be subject to be revoked at any time, and could not, even as between them, create a trust. But, presumptively, where the future support of the grantor is reserved, it represents
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- New v. SailorsIndiana Supreme Court· 1888-04-25· cited 32×
- Lawson v. FunkIllinois Supreme Court· 1884-01-23· cited 20×
- McKey v. CochranIllinois Supreme Court· 1914-02-21· cited 17×
- Harting v. JockersIllinois Supreme Court· 1891-03-30· cited 14×
- Kain v. LarkinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1896-04-15· cited 11×
- Ragor v. LomaxAppellate Court of Illinois· 1887-07-13· cited 10×
- Bostwick v. BlakeIllinois Supreme Court· 1893-05-09· cited 9×
- Crane ex rel. Niemeyer v. Illinois Merchants Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1925-10-06· cited 7×
- Best v. Fuller & Fuller Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1900-04-17· cited 6×
- People's Bank v. WoodAppellate Court of Illinois· 1917-10-11· cited 5×
- McKey v. RoetterSeventh Circuit· 1940-07-03· cited 2×
- Kassing v. DurandAppellate Court of Illinois· 1891-06-25· cited 2×
- Fuller & Fuller Co. v. GaulAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-11-02· cited 1×
- Auburgh v. LydstonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1905-01-06· cited 1×
- Eichler v. HoeftAppellate Court of Illinois· 1911-10-04· cited 1×
- Harting v. JockersAppellate Court of Illinois· 1890-09-20
- Sanderson v. SnowAppellate Court of Illinois· 1897-01-13
- Clark v. G. A. Ball-Bearing Manufacturing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1927-10-10
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.