Salmon v. Smith

Citations

• 58 Miss. 399

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraudulent Conveyance. Purchase by wife of debtor. ' Chancery pleading. Point in issue.</p> <p>S., a judgment creditor of J., filed a bill against him and his wife, A., to subject to the payment of the judgment certain real property, the title of which was in the name of the wife, upon the allegation that the property really belonged to J., who, in pursuance of a scheme to defraud and defeat his creditors, had conveyed the legal title thereof to his brother D., and he, in furtherance of such scheme, conveyed the same to A., and if any money was paid by her in the purchase it was furnished by her husband, J. The answer of the defendants denied these allegations, both as to the fraudulent conveyance and as to the payment by the wife with the husband’s means. Held, that the material issue presented by the pleadings is, not whether the wife paid for th'e property with her own money, but whether the conveyance by the husband to his brother was valid; for, if that was valid, it placed the title beyond the-reach of the creditor, and the holder thereof might even have given the property to the wife if he chose to do so.</p> <p>2. Same. Pleadings in respect thereto. Hidden assets. Relief.</p> <p>Upon pleadings framed as above stated, with corresponding evidence, it is not proper for the court to render a decree subjecting the property to the complainant’s judgment on the ground that the debtor’s assets were put into it as purchase-money for the wife and in improvements thereon; such relief, upon that ground, being unauthorized by the scope of the litigation.</p> <p>3. Chancery Practice. Answer of one defendant as evidence for another. Effect thereof.</p> <p>The answer of one defendant to a bill in chancery, which is responsive and shows that the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought, enures to the benefit of a co-defendant as evidence; and if such answer be not overthrown, the complainant is not entitled to a decree against any defendant.</p>