Swartz v. Hazlett

Citations

• 8 Cal. 118
• 1857 Cal. LEXIS 311

Syllabus

<p>Whore a parent executes to his infant son a conveyance of property in consideration of services performed, it must be considered as a voluntary conveyance without legal consideration, as he is not legally bound to pay for his son's services. Such a deed is therefore void against the creditors of the parent, if made when his remaining property is insufficient to pay his debts.</p> <p>Proof of fraudulent intent on the part of the donor is sufficient to avoid the deed, as against an innocent donee.</p> <p>In determining the question of fraudulent intent of the donor, he must be considered as knowing the law and the state of his own affairs.</p> <p>Where A, by a joint deed grants to his son and H certain premises, for which H pays a valuable consideration, and the son pays nothing, and the fact of this want of consideration on the part of the son, is known to H, the fraud in part of the conveyance makes it wholly void, as against the creditors of A. at the date of the deed.</p> <p>If the co-grantee, with the son, was ignorant of the partial want of consideration, whether the deed would be good as to him—quaere»</p> <p>The case of Taaffe v. Josephson affirmed.</p>