Ryland v. Callison
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Lafayette Circuit Court. 1. Ryland was a purchaser at sheriff’s sale, and not from the original grantor, and a purchaser to come within the meaning of tbe statute must purchase from the fraudulent grantor. (1 Sto. Eq.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Lafayette Circuit Court. 1. Ryland was a purchaser at sheriff’s sale, and not from the original grantor, and a purchaser to come within the meaning of tbe statute must purchase from the fraudulent grantor. (1 Sto. Eq. Jnr., § 433 and n.; Kerr Fraud and Mist., 228, 229 ; Russell vs. Kearney, 27 Ga., 96; Bell vs. McCawley, ’ 29 Ga., 355. 2. Where a person makes a conveyance, which is valid between the parties, thereto, thoughfrcmdulent as to creditros, he has no interest in the land, either legal or equitable, which can be sold under execution, until tbe creditor has proceeded in…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
John E. Ryland, plaintiff, became the purchaser at execution sale of certain lands once owned by defendant James B. Callison, but which had been conveyed by the latter to his sister-in-law. This suit is brought to set aside that conveyance on the ground that it was made to hinder, delay and defraud Callison’s creditors; and the evidence adduced ou the trial leaves *515no room for doubt, that such was the intent which prompted the execution of the deed in question. The law is well settled in this State, that, where a debtor conveys his land with the fraudulent design above mentioned, a resulting…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Lionberger v. BakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Rinehart v. LongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Forster v. Mullanphy Planing Mill Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- McDaniel v. SprickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Oldham v. WadeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.