Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing

16 Citing cases

  1. Schell v. Gamble

    153 Cal. 448 (Cal. 1908)   Cited 6 times

    It is true that a deed of gift, which we may assume this deed to have been, may be void because made with intent to enable the grantor to defraud future creditors. (See Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, [ 66 P. 967], and authorities there cited.) But to bring a case within this rule the deed must be fraudulent in its inception, made with the specific intent to defraud future creditors.

  2. Rossen v. Villanueva

    175 Cal. 632 (Cal. 1917)   Cited 25 times
    In Rossen, the court affirmed the lower court's finding of fraudulent intent on the part of the parties to the transaction stating (at p. 636) that it found the "badges of fraud so convincing that it may well be doubted whether findings in favor of the defendants could have been sustained."

    The facts speak for themselves. The debtor's concealment, his subsequent disappearance, the unusual mode in which the appellants made their purchase (20 Cyc. 451.), the secrecy surrounding the transaction (20 Cyc. 447; Daugherty v. Daugherty, 104 Cal. 221, [37 P. 889]; Bush M. Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, [ 66 P. 967]), the disingenuous conduct of the appellants and their active efforts to hide from the plaintiff the fact of their purchase (20 Cyc. 446), all these are badges of fraud so convincing that it may well be doubted whether findings in favor of the defendants could have been sustained. We may add that the evidence justifies the inference that the consideration paid was considerably less than the full value.

  3. Scholle v. Finnell

    167 Cal. 90 (Cal. 1914)   Cited 12 times

    It is well established as a general proposition that declarations of a grantor made after conveyance by him are inadmissible in disparagement of or to impugn the title conveyed. Appellant admits this, but insists that an exception to the general rule is recognized where the evidence shows a combination or conspiracy on the part of the grantor and grantee to perpetrate a fraud on the creditors of the grantor by concealing his property from them, and he says that in the present case when these declarations were offered there was sufficient evidence prima facie to show such a combination or conspiracy which rendered them admissible within the exception recognized and applied in Bush v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, [ 66 P. 967]. In the cited case, however, it is clear that there was a conspiracy between the husband and wife to defraud the creditors of the husband.

  4. Bank of California v. Virtue Scheck, Inc.

    140 Cal.App.3d 1026 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 6 times

    The control of the property after the alleged sale . . . [was] amply sufficient to raise a prima facie intendment of fraud in the transaction." ( Id., at p. 332; accord, Southwick v. Moore (1923) 61 Cal.App. 585 [ 215 P. 704]; Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing (1901) 134 Cal. 676 [ 66 P. 967]; see also Kemp v. Lynch (1937) 8 Cal.2d 457 [ 65 P.2d 1316]; Sheean v. Michel (1936) 6 Cal.2d 324 [ 57 P.2d 127].) Plaintiff, however, contends that the foregoing cases cited in opposition to the rule of a conclusive presumption of fraud are distinguishable from the case herein.

  5. Krauss v. Strop

    47 Cal.App.2d 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    While the burden of proof would be on the creditors alleging fraud, nevertheless, if established and found, their right to complain and to enforce their claims is made out. ( Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676 [ 66 P. 967]; Franck v. Moran, 36 Cal.App. 32 [ 171 P. 841].) [3] The respondent urges that appellants could not have attached the property or subjected it to their claims while it was in the possession of the executor and therefore the sale to respondent, even conceding it to have been fraudulent, produced no injury or damages.

  6. McAlvay v. Consumers' Salt Co.

    112 Cal.App. 383 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)   Cited 18 times
    In McAlvay v. Consumers' Salt Co., supra, 112 Cal.App. 383, 396, the court said: "[T]he right of a husband to maintain an action to quiet his title to community property against the wife has been frequently upheld.

    of his adversaries ( Di Nola v. Allison, 143 Cal. 106 [101 Am. St. Rep. 84, 65 L.R.A. 419, 76 P. 976]; Sears v. Willard, 165 Cal. 12 [ 130 P. 869]). [12] Also where a plaintiff claims under an execution sale he must show as against a stranger to the judgment that the judgment debtor had title or possession at the date of the lien or execution sale ( Robinson v. Thornton, 102 Cal. 675, 681 [34 P. 120]; Reilly v. Wright, 117 Cal. 77 [48 P. 970]). Appellants further claim that plaintiff being at most a subsequent creditor of Stockwell, is not under the facts one of the class who could attack the transfer to Mrs. Greenleaf. [13] It is the general rule that the only creditors who can complain are those who were creditors at the time of the alleged fraudulent transfer, or those subsequent thereto who were intended to be defrauded; but to make a voluntary conveyance void as to subsequent creditors it must be made with the intent of fraudulently preventing them from enforcing their claims ( Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676 [ 66 P. 967]; Franck v. Moran, 36 Cal.App. 32 [ 171 P. 841]). Otherwise subsequent creditors cannot complain ( Kane v. Desmond, 63 Cal. 464; Scales v. Holje, 41 Cal.App. 733 [ 183 P. 308]). [14] But it is also the rule that though the nominal title to property be conveyed to another, it is nevertheless liable for the debts of its owner ( Scott v. Keane, 87 Md. 709 [42 L.R.A. 359, 40 A. 1070]; Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 [64 N.W. 818]; McKey v. Cochran, 262 Ill. 376 [104 N.E. 693]; Spencer v. Davis, (Tex. Civ. App.) 298 S.W. 443; Jamison v. Mississippi etc. Trust Co., (Mo.) 207 S.W. 788; Ward v. Marie, 73 N.J. Eq. 510 [68 A. 1084]; Benedict v. Benedict, 261 Pa. St. 117 [104 A. 581]; Menken Co. v. Brinkley, 94 Tenn. 721 [31 S.W. 92]), upon the principle that one cannot be the equitable owner of property and still have it exempt from his debts (27 Cor. Jur., Fraudulent Conveyances, sec. 344, p. 600; McColgan v. Magee, Inc., 172 Cal. 182 [Ann.

  7. Dockstader v. First National Bank of Lemoore

    104 Cal.App. 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)   Cited 2 times

    " Respondent quotes largely from the case of Bush Mallette Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676 [ 66 P. 967]. This was an action in which a deed was made May 15, 1893, by the defendant Louis Helbing to his wife Louise Helbing, when plaintiff was not a creditor of the defendant Helbing.

  8. Southwick v. Moore

    61 Cal.App. 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)   Cited 10 times

    A deed without consideration may be void as made with the specific intent to enable the grantor to defraud future creditors. ( Schell v. Gamble, 153 Cal. 448 [ 95 P. 870]; Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676 [ 66 P. 967].) Whether such intent is shown is a question of fact and not one of law. (Sec. 3442, Civ. Code.)

  9. Goebel v. Gregg

    57 Cal.App. 651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)   Cited 3 times

    To this rule, however, there is the well-recognized exception that a deed of gift which is fraudulent in its inception and made with intent to enable the grantor to defraud a future creditor, is as to such person void. ( Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676 [ 66 P. 967].) This exception is based upon the fact that if the debtor secretly and without the knowledge of one with whom he contracts an indebtedness transfers his property without consideration, knowing that the creditor in dealing with him relies upon his ownership thereof, it constitutes actual fraud, and upon a showing of such facts such transfer may be annulled.

  10. Houts v. First Trust and Savings Bank

    34 Cal.App. 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)   Cited 3 times

    In the present action the defendant, First Trust and Savings Bank, pleaded and proved in detail the foregoing facts, and the court found the transaction out of which grew the plaintiff's asserted lease to be fraudulent from its inception and said lease to be void. A closely analogous case to the case at bar is that of Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, [ 66 P. 967], wherein the supreme court held a similar transaction to be fraudulent and void. Upon the authority of that case the judgment and order are affirmed.