Johnson v. Rutherford
North Dakota Supreme Court
From a judgment of tbe district court of Cass county, Pollock, J., both the administrator and Mary Rutherford separately appeal, and trial de novo is had. Fraudulent intent must be alleged and proved in an action to set aside a deed or gift as a fraud upon creditors; and such an intent is a question of fact.
Read the full summary
From a judgment of tbe district court of Cass county, Pollock, J., both the administrator and Mary Rutherford separately appeal, and trial de novo is had. Fraudulent intent must be alleged and proved in an action to set aside a deed or gift as a fraud upon creditors; and such an intent is a question of fact. Windhaus v. Bootz, 92 Cal. 617, 28 Bac. 557; Emmons v. Barton, 109 Cal. 662, 42 Pac. 303; Murphy v. Clayton, 114 Cal. 526, 43 Pac. 613, 46 Pac. 460; Ackerman v. Merle, 137 Cal. 157, 69 Pac. 982; Aigeltinger v. Einstein, 143 Cal. 614, 101 Am. St. Rep. 131, 77 Pac. 669; Dalrymple v.…
1OpinionGoss, J.
(on petition for rehearing filed May 21, 1914). Counsel for Mary Rutherford has filed what, speaking mildly, may be called a *107vigorous petition for rehearing. Counsel protests against the conclusion that the transfers are to be deemed fraudulent.
He insists that fraud is dependent upon the intent of the grantor at the time of the grant, and that a fraudulent intent in the grantor must be found to have existed in fact, before the transfer, can be held to have been fraudulent, and that, as the trial judge has found that the conveyances were not in fact made with intent of the grantor to defraud,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Shiels v. NathanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- Wells v. Schuster-Hax National BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1897
- McCord v. KnowltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Stevens v. MeyersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Hessian v. PattenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.