Hart-Parr Co. v. Schafer Et Al‪.‬

Fraudulent Conveyances ? Insolvency of Debtor ? Relationship of Parties ? Inadequacy of Consideration ? Appeal. Fraudulent Conveyances ? Insolvency of Debtor ? Return of Execution Unsatisfied Prima Facie Sufficient Showing. 1. Return of execution unsatisfied is sufficient proof of exhaustion of the legal remedy; such a return establishes prima facie the insolvency of the debtor and that he has no other property out of which the execution could be made, and entitles the execution creditor to maintain a suit to set aside a conveyance as made in fraud of his rights. - Page 430 Same ? Relationship of Parties ? Subject to Rigid Scrutiny. 2. While the mere fact of the relationship of brother and sister between the defendants in a suit to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent is not itself a badge of fraud, the rule is that transfers between near relatives are subject to the most rigid scrutiny, and the fact of such relationship may properly be considered, with other evidence, as reflecting the intention with which the transfer was made. Same ? Inadequacy of Consideration ? Rule. 3. Where the disparity between the true value of property transferred and the price paid is so great as to shock the conscience of a correct mind, it is sufficient to avoid the sale as fraudulent. Same ? Consideration Held Inadequate. 4. Under the above rules, held, that where the owner of property worth $67,500 transferred it to his sister for the consideration of one dollar, who thereupon gave to him a power of attorney under which he practically had the same control over it he had before the transfer, the trial court erred in holding that plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance. Trial ? Motion for Judgment at Close of Evidence of Adverse Party ? Motion Erroneously Granted ? Effect on Appeal. 5. Where defendants in a suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance at the close of plaintiffs case moved for judgment in their favor, without introducing testimony that the consideration of one dollar recited in the deed for property worth $67,500, was not the true consideration, and the court erroneously decided in their favor, the supreme court will reverse the judgment and direct entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff.