Sukeforth v. Lord

Citations

• 3 Cal. Unrep. 238
• 23 P. 296
• 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1188

Syllabus

<p>Fraudulent Conveyance—Pleading and Proof.—In an action for the conversion of merchandise levied on under an execution on a judgment against S., the answer alleged “that the defendant is informed and believes, and, upon such information and belief, so avers the fact to be, that, .... while said S. was so as aforesaid engaged in business, and while he was so as aforesaid indebted, he, said S. and the plaintiff, who is his brother, conspired together for the purpose, and with the intent, to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of said S. out of their just debts and demands against him, said S.; and with such purpose and intent said S. made a pretended false and fraudulent sale of the property mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint . ... to the plaintiff; and with such purpose and intent the said plaintiff received said pretended false and fraudulent conveyance; and thereupon said plaintiff took possession of said property, and so held the same, and not otherwise.” Held, that defendant could not prove fraud, under the answer, as it merely alleged a conclusion.</p> <p>Appeal—Exceptions.—After the Case was Given to the Jury, counsel for defendant said that he desired certain exceptions entered, to which the judge replied, “Have any exceptions entered that you desire,” and in answer to counsel’s question, “Shall I have the clerk enter them?” the judge replied, “If you choose, do so.” Counsel, however, never had any exception entered, either by the court or clerk, and never prepared or had settled any bill of exceptions. Held, that this did not entitle defendant to a review of the rulings.</p> <p>Works, J., dissenting.</p>