Jones v. Hogan
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. J. T. McElhinney, Judge. The. agreement made between Robert G-. Hogan and Cornelia S. Hogan in May, 1901, that he should occupy his wife’s separate property as a home for his family and should pay therefor in lieu of rent, the interest on the encumbrance, the taxes, repairs and insurance, was lawful and valid and was not in any sense fraudulent as to the creditors of Robert G. Hogan.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. J. T. McElhinney, Judge. The. agreement made between Robert G-. Hogan and Cornelia S. Hogan in May, 1901, that he should occupy his wife’s separate property as a home for his family and should pay therefor in lieu of rent, the interest on the encumbrance, the taxes, repairs and insurance, was lawful and valid and was not in any sense fraudulent as to the creditors of Robert G. Hogan. Bump on Fraudulent Conv., sec. 218; Brundage v. Munger, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1014; Slay v. Hess, 123 Mo. 450; Grunner v. Scholtz, 154 M'o. 415; Welch v. Morris, 193 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — The court below found the purchases of property made by Hogan prior to 1897 in the name of his wife were voluntary, *356but.as be was then unembarrassed by debts, held they were lawful, as being no more than a reasonable provision for her out of his property and made with no intent to defraud prior or subsequent creditors. [Eddy v. Baldwin, 32 Mo. 369; Fehlig v. Busch, 165 Mo. 144.] The same ruling was made regarding the note for |4,000 executed by Hogan under the style of Robert G. Hogan & Co. to indemnify her against loss of the homestead mortgaged to raise money…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Burt v. TimmonsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Rice, Stix & Co. v. SallySupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Dillman v. NadelhofferIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Gage v. . DauchyNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Hart v. LeeteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. HugheySupreme Court of Missouri · 1966