Reed v. Noxon

Citations

• 48 Ill. 323

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraudulent conveyances. When the object of a grantor, in making a conveyance, was to hinder or delay his creditors, such instrument is not purged of the fraud, because he may also have had some other purpose in view at the time of making it.</p> <p>2. Fraud—how proved. Although fraud cannot be presumed without proof, yet it need only be proven like any other material fact, and whenever it exists, it must generally be proven by showing such facts and circumstances as will justify the inference of a fraudulent intent or motive.</p> <p>3. Evidence—declarations of a mortgagee—not admissible in a suit against the mortgagor alone. The declarations of a mortgagee, made either before or after the execution of the instrument, and who did not act as the agent of the mortgagor in making the mortgage, are not admissible in evidence, in an attachment against the mortgagor alone by a creditor, charging such conveyance to have been made for the purpose of hindering and delaying creditors.</p> <p>4. Same. But in a suit in chancery against both, to subject the mortgaged property to payment of the creditors of the mortgagor, the statement of such mortgagee would be admissible against himself.</p>