Anderson v. Anderson
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 116 — EQUITY APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Both of the deeds were executed the same day, and at the time they were executed A. H. Anderson was hopelessly insolvent. He owed twice as much as he could pay. Every fact in the case leads inevitably to the conclusion that the deeds are fraudulent. '2. It must be conceded that postnuptial contracts between husband and \yife are void at law.
Read the full summary
Case 116 — EQUITY APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Both of the deeds were executed the same day, and at the time they were executed A. H. Anderson was hopelessly insolvent. He owed twice as much as he could pay. Every fact in the case leads inevitably to the conclusion that the deeds are fraudulent. '2. It must be conceded that postnuptial contracts between husband and \yife are void at law. We also concede that, under some circumstances, they may be upheld in equity when founded on a fair, valid, and sufficient consideration. 3. The first class of cases where contentions have arisen…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Hargis
delivered tiie opinion of the court.
A. H. Anderson became the owner, by deeds of' conveyance, of about eleven hundred and sixty-two acres of land, which he acquired, from time to time, during a period of twenty-five years, prior to January 1, 1870.
He became largely involved in debt as the surety of his-brother, J. J. Anderson, and his nephew, T. C. Anderson, who mortgaged, to a .considerable extent, their lands early in January, 1874; obtaining large sums of money thereon, *641and on the 29th of that month, and on the 23d February-following, they respectively filed their petitions in bankruptcy.
Th…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ray's Trustee v. Ray's AssigneeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Oliver & O'Bryan v. SuttonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
- Advance Publishing Company's Trustee in Bankruptcy v. BillupsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929