Crowder v. Crowder et al. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 746.]

  • Published on
    09-Jan-2017

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • Crowder v. Crowder et al. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 746.]Source: The Virginia Law Register, New Series, Vol. 5, No. 11 (Mar., 1920), pp. 846-847Published by: Virginia Law ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1106897 .Accessed: 15/05/2014 02:35

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

    .

    Virginia Law Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Virginia LawRegister.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 195.78.109.110 on Thu, 15 May 2014 02:35:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vlrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1106897?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 5 VIRGINIA LAW REGISTER, N. S. 5 VIRGINIA LAW REGISTER, N. S.

    rendered on demurrer to the evidence, and plaintiff brings er- ror. Affirmed.

    O'Flaherty, Fulton & Byrd, of Richmond, for plaintiff in er- ror.

    E. P. Cox, of Richmond, and W. B. Mcllwaine and Bernard Mann, both of Petersburg, for defendant in error.

    CROWDER v. CROWDER et al.

    June 12, 1919.

    [99 S. E. 746.1

    1. Appeal and Error (? 80 (1)*)-Finality of Decree-Divorce Suit.-In suit for divorce on.the ground of desertion and to set aside as fraudulent sale of property made by defendant husband to his

    brothers, decree held final to support an appeal, though the divorce

    prayed for had not been granted in terms, which in effect sustained

    plaintiff's claim that she was entitled to divorce for desertion, and found against her claim of fraud in the sale on the part of the buyers.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 1 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 438.] 2. Divorce (? 276 (4)*)-Fraudulent Sale by Husband-Evidence.

    -In suit for divorce artd to set aside as fraudulent a sale of defend- ant husband's property to his brothers, evidence held to show that the husband committed a fraud on the rights of his wife and child, and that his brothers participated therein, and aided and abe:ted him, so that the transfers were void under Code 1904, ? 2458.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 7 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 221.] 3. Divorce (? 276 (4)*)-Fraudulent Conveyance by Husband.-

    While fraud -in sale of husband's property must be clearly proved by the wife, it is not necessary that it should be expressly shown.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 6 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 562; 14 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 490.]

    4. Divorce (? 275 (3)*)-Fraudulent Conveyances-KnowJedge of Fraud.-Where the fraud of a husband, grantor in a deed or a seller of personalty, has been clearly shown, and it is sought to charge the grantee or purchaser with guilty knowledge, it is not necessary to prove his positive knowledge of the fraudulent intent, but sufficient to show knowledge on his part of facts and circumstances which would have excited the suspicion of a man of ordinary prudence and put him on inquiry.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 6 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 562.] 5. Divorce (? 275 (2)*)-Transfer in Fraud of Wife-Statute.-

    Immediately on desertion entitling a wife to divorce and alimony, if there has been a breach of duty by the husband, and if he transfers

    *For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key- Numbered Digests and Indexes.

    rendered on demurrer to the evidence, and plaintiff brings er- ror. Affirmed.

    O'Flaherty, Fulton & Byrd, of Richmond, for plaintiff in er- ror.

    E. P. Cox, of Richmond, and W. B. Mcllwaine and Bernard Mann, both of Petersburg, for defendant in error.

    CROWDER v. CROWDER et al.

    June 12, 1919.

    [99 S. E. 746.1

    1. Appeal and Error (? 80 (1)*)-Finality of Decree-Divorce Suit.-In suit for divorce on.the ground of desertion and to set aside as fraudulent sale of property made by defendant husband to his

    brothers, decree held final to support an appeal, though the divorce

    prayed for had not been granted in terms, which in effect sustained

    plaintiff's claim that she was entitled to divorce for desertion, and found against her claim of fraud in the sale on the part of the buyers.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 1 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 438.] 2. Divorce (? 276 (4)*)-Fraudulent Sale by Husband-Evidence.

    -In suit for divorce artd to set aside as fraudulent a sale of defend- ant husband's property to his brothers, evidence held to show that the husband committed a fraud on the rights of his wife and child, and that his brothers participated therein, and aided and abe:ted him, so that the transfers were void under Code 1904, ? 2458.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 7 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 221.] 3. Divorce (? 276 (4)*)-Fraudulent Conveyance by Husband.-

    While fraud -in sale of husband's property must be clearly proved by the wife, it is not necessary that it should be expressly shown.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 6 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 562; 14 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 490.]

    4. Divorce (? 275 (3)*)-Fraudulent Conveyances-KnowJedge of Fraud.-Where the fraud of a husband, grantor in a deed or a seller of personalty, has been clearly shown, and it is sought to charge the grantee or purchaser with guilty knowledge, it is not necessary to prove his positive knowledge of the fraudulent intent, but sufficient to show knowledge on his part of facts and circumstances which would have excited the suspicion of a man of ordinary prudence and put him on inquiry.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 6 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 562.] 5. Divorce (? 275 (2)*)-Transfer in Fraud of Wife-Statute.-

    Immediately on desertion entitling a wife to divorce and alimony, if there has been a breach of duty by the husband, and if he transfers

    *For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key- Numbered Digests and Indexes.

    846 846 [ March, [ March,

    This content downloaded from 195.78.109.110 on Thu, 15 May 2014 02:35:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 1920. ] DIGEST OF RECENT VIRGINIA DECISIONS. 1920. ] DIGEST OF RECENT VIRGINIA DECISIONS. 847 847

    his property to another with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the wife in the enforcement of her rights, such transfer is void under Code 1904, ? 2458, whether or not she is a creditor in a technical sense.

    6. Divorce (? 276 (2)*)-Fraudulent Conveyances-Suit-Trans- feree of Notes as Party.-In a wife's suit for divorce and to set aside as fraudulent sale of property by defendant husband to his broth- ers, the wife's claim being against the property, though she was will- ing to take its value as agreed upon by notes given for it by the brothers to the husband, it was error to require the husband's trans- feree of the notes to come into the suit at all and defend; his claims and those of the wife being separate.

    7. Courts (? 99 (1)*)-Law of Case.-Refusal of an appeal from the action of the trial court in overruling the demurrer of two defendants to the bill settled the question adversely to defendant's claim, and be- came the law of the case, and cannot be again brought in question.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 1 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 646.] 8. Divorce (? 276 (5)*)-Fraudulent Conveyances-Personal De-

    cree Against Grantees.-On satisfactory proof of the participation of the grantees and purchasers in the fraud of the grantor and seller, it was competent for the court to have rendered a personal decree against them, in favor of the grantor's wife, suing him for divorce, for the amounts of their respective purchases, so that they were not injured by the decree requiring them to pay the amounts into court.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 6 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 676.1

    Appeal from Circuit Court, Lunenburg County. Suit for divorce and to set aside fraudulent conveyance by

    Lavonia Ruth Crowder, by, etc., against W. Scott Crowder and others. From the decree, complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

    N. S. Turn bull, Jr., of Victoria, and W. Moncurc Gravatt, of Blackstone, for appellant.

    L. O. Wendcnburg, of Richmond, Geo. E. Allen, of Victoria, and W. R. Jonies and L. S. Epes, both of Blackstone, for ap- pellee.

    JOHNSON et al. v. LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL & WATER CO. et al.

    June 12, 1919.

    [99 S.-E. 771.]

    Eminent Domain (? 319*)-Canal Franchise-Condition of Use by Abutting Owners-Abandonment with Consent of Commonwealth. -The right of free use by owners of abutting lands by Act Feb. 9,

    *For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key- Numbered Digests and Indexes.

    his property to another with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the wife in the enforcement of her rights, such transfer is void under Code 1904, ? 2458, whether or not she is a creditor in a technical sense.

    6. Divorce (? 276 (2)*)-Fraudulent Conveyances-Suit-Trans- feree of Notes as Party.-In a wife's suit for divorce and to set aside as fraudulent sale of property by defendant husband to his broth- ers, the wife's claim being against the property, though she was will- ing to take its value as agreed upon by notes given for it by the brothers to the husband, it was error to require the husband's trans- feree of the notes to come into the suit at all and defend; his claims and those of the wife being separate.

    7. Courts (? 99 (1)*)-Law of Case.-Refusal of an appeal from the action of the trial court in overruling the demurrer of two defendants to the bill settled the question adversely to defendant's claim, and be- came the law of the case, and cannot be again brought in question.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 1 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 646.] 8. Divorce (? 276 (5)*)-Fraudulent Conveyances-Personal De-

    cree Against Grantees.-On satisfactory proof of the participation of the grantees and purchasers in the fraud of the grantor and seller, it was competent for the court to have rendered a personal decree against them, in favor of the grantor's wife, suing him for divorce, for the amounts of their respective purchases, so that they were not injured by the decree requiring them to pay the amounts into court.

    [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see 6 Va.-W. Va. Enc. Dig. 676.1

    Appeal from Circuit Court, Lunenburg County. Suit for divorce and to set aside fraudulent conveyance by

    Lavonia Ruth Crowder, by, etc., against W. Scott Crowder and others. From the decree, complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

    N. S. Turn bull, Jr., of Victoria, and W. Moncurc Gravatt, of Blackstone, for appellant.

    L. O. Wendcnburg, of Richmond, Geo. E. Allen, of Victoria, and W. R. Jonies and L. S. Epes, both of Blackstone, for ap- pellee.

    JOHNSON et al. v. LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL & WATER CO. et al.

    June 12, 1919.

    [99 S.-E. 771.]

    Eminent Domain (? 319*)-Canal Franchise-Condition of Use by Abutting Owners-Abandonment with Consent of Commonwealth. -The right of free use by owners of abutting lands by Act Feb. 9,

    *For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key- Numbered Digests and Indexes.

    This content downloaded from 195.78.109.110 on Thu, 15 May 2014 02:35:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    Article Contentsp. 846p. 847

    Issue Table of ContentsThe Virginia Law Register, New Series, Vol. 5, No. 11 (Mar., 1920), pp. 817-896The Examination of Titles in Virginia [pp. 817 - 830]"Grounds upon Which a Bank Can Refuse Payment of Certified Checks" [pp. 831 - 835]Recent Virginia Decisions Reported in FullHustings Court of Petersburg. Commonwealth v. Worrell [pp. 836 - 840]

    Digest of Other Recent Virginia DecisionsWessel, Duval & Co. v. Winborne & Co., Inc. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 719.] [p. 841]Eichelbaum v. Klaff. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 721.] [p. 842]Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Commonwealth ex rel. City of Clifton Forge et al. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 723.] [pp. 842 - 844]Shumaker's Adm'x v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 739.] [pp. 844 - 846]Crowder v. Crowder et al. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 746.] [pp. 846 - 847]Johnson et al. v. Lake Drummond Canal & Water Co. et al. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 771.] [pp. 847 - 848]American Tobacco Co. v. City of Richmond. Same v. City of Danville. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 777.] [pp. 848 - 849]Johnson et al. v. Merritt et al. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 785.] [pp. 849 - 852]Chandler v. Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. June 12, 1919. [99 S. E. 794.] [pp. 852 - 853]Brooks v. Clintsman. [100 S. E. 394.] [p. 853]Blizzard et al. v. Salyer et al. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 454.] [pp. 853 - 854]Frey's Ex'rs v. Tillett. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 457.] [p. 855]Cover v. Widener et al. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 459.] [pp. 855 - 856]Davis et al. v. Bostic et al. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 463.] [p. 856]Blanchard v. Dominion Nat. Bank. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 463.] [pp. 856 - 857]Dudley v. Carter Red Ash Collieries Co. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 466.] [pp. 858 - 859]Clark et al. v. Reynolds. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 468.] [pp. 859 - 860]Haynes et al. v. Peterson. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 471.] [pp. 860 - 861]Adams Express Co. v. Allen. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 473.] [pp. 861 - 862]W. L. Becker & Co. v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 478.] [p. 862]Blankenship v. Blankenship. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 538.] [p. 863]Davis v. Alderson. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 541.] [pp. 864 - 865]Buchanan County et al. v. W. M. Ritter Lumber Co. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 546.] [pp. 865 - 866]Boatright v. Litz et al. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 547.] [p. 866]Ely v. Gray. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 660.] [pp. 867 - 868]City of Radford v. Brooks. Sept. 17, 1919. [100 S. E. 664.] [pp. 868 - 869]

    Editorials [pp. 870 - 883]Notes of CasesAutomobiles. Negligent Operation. Liability of Father for Injury to Guest of Son [pp. 884 - 885]Federal Employers' Liability Act. Recovery by Employee as barring Action by Personal Representative [pp. 885 - 888]Privileged Communications. Statements of Counsel in Application for Pardon [pp. 888 - 889]Workmen's Compensation Law. Injury Arising in Course of Employment [pp. 889 - 891]

    Miscellany [pp. 892 - 895]In Vacation [p. 896]