{
  "id": 1449990,
  "name": "Scrape v. Robinson, Agent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scrape v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1941-04-14",
  "docket_number": "4-6288",
  "first_page": "264",
  "last_page": "267",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ark. 264"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "149 S.W.2d 943"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "190 S. W. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 Ark. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1551769
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/126/0253-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 360,
    "char_count": 5421,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3074644506301333
    },
    "sha256": "9ced36caaa201468d77719397b32ae921f1c192c04691534ba649052c8c3e829",
    "simhash": "1:f352175cbc27c9fe",
    "word_count": 940
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:41:33.899118+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Scrape v. Robinson, Agent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "G-rieein Smith, C. J.\nThe court set aside in part G. F. Scrape\u2019s deed conveying 220 acres of land to his wife, holding that the transaction was a fraud on creditors. The appeal is from that decree.\nMary Phillips Robinson, agent and attorney in fact for Mary E. Oglesby, plaintiff below and appellee here, procured judgment against G. F. Scrape for $2,164.96 on a complaint filed December 6, 1938. Scrape\u2019s deed is dated December 7, 1938. The recited consideration is love and affection and the assumption of mortgages aggregating $11,400. The instrument was filed for record at 9:30 a. m. on the day of its date. December 7, 1938, Scrape executed a bill of sale conveying to his wife all of his personal property. By amendment to the complaint Mrs. Scrape was made a defendant.\nAppellants insist a preponderance of the evidence does not support the court\u2019s finding that the deed was without consideration. Emphasis is given to Mrs. Scrape\u2019s testimony, and that of her husband, which is to this effect: At the time of her marriage Mrs. Scrape had certain funds, perhaps $600. For twenty-six years the couple had pooled earnings. Profits went into a \u201cgeneral fund.\u201d The agreement to pay $11,400 of mortgage debt was of benefit to the husband. Mrs. Scrape had loaned money to her husband over a period of years.\nOTHER PACTS--AND OPINION.\nThe wife admitted knowledge that her husband owed at least a part of the rent for 1937 and 1938. The so-called \u201cloans\u201d made from time to time were not evidenced by writings, nor were account books kept. Mrs. Scrape had permitted her husband to handle all business affairs and to treat the property as his own; and after appellee procured judgment in circuit court, and while the suit in chancery was pending, no change in the manner of handling the property was made. Mrs. Scrape did not know when the deed was made. Mr. Scrape did not inform his wife of the purpose to convey. Some time in December, Mrs. Scrape ascertained the facts, and \u201cwas pleased.\u201d She did not know what the personal property consisted of. When asked what she knew about the way the business was handled, Mrs. Scrape replied: \u201cWell, I knew just about what any other wife would know.\u201d\nThere was other evidence of knowledge by Mrs. Scrape of her husband\u2019s indebtedness and there were circumstances from which a presumption of insolvency arose. In short, when Mrs. Scrape was informed that the deed had been executed, she could not have been in ignorance of its purpose. Summons was served on Gr. F. Scrape, December 6, and the next day he attempted to strip himself of property. Mrs. Scrape had not at that time assumed' payment of the indebtedness of $11,400. The deed was not delivered to her. Considerable time elapsed before the fact was brought to her attention. Although the circuit clerk did not remember who filed the deed for record, the clerk took Gr. F. Scrape\u2019s acknowledgment. Mrs. Scrape testified that she did not know what consideration was set out in the deed.\nIt is next argued that the chancery court did not render a judgment against appellants, but merely declared the judgment of the circuit court to be a lien on the land. It is true there is no declaration in the decree reciting, in express language, that \u201cjudgment is hereby given.\u201d This was unnecessary. The debt was not denied. Effect of the decree is to find that there was an indebtedness, and for all purposes other than technical sparring the obligation became a part of the decree as effectively as though formal language had been used to express what obviously was being done by intendment.\nWhen the debt was declared a lien on 140 acres of the land, it was the judgment of the chancery court.\nWe think the sale ordered by the chancery court should be on a credit of not less than three months, as provided by statute for judicial sales. Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 8199; Neely v. Lee Wilson & Co., 126 Ark. 253, 190 S. W. 431. Direction in the decree was that the property be sold for cash. In this respect it is modified; and, as modified, it is affirmed.\nEighty acres claimed by the defendant as a homestead (but included in the deed conveying 220 acres) were excluded from the order canceling the transaction.\nThe indebtedness represented the balance due by Scrape as cash rent for 1937 and 1938 on lands owned by appellee. The judgment was obtained June 15, 1939.\nAlthough the trial court found that \u201c. . . said conveyances by G. F. Scrape, both of his land and personal property [were made] for the purpose of defrauding, cheating, hindering, and delaying the plaintiff in the collection of [her] judgment,\u201d and that Mary J. Scrape . . accepted said conveyances with knowledge of the indebtedness [of G. F. Scrape to the plaintiff] and that said deed was without consideration and void as to the rights of [the] plaintiff,\u201d there is no further reference to the personal property.\n[There is no express prayer in the complaint or in the amended complaint asking cancellation of the personal property transaction, and the fact of its execution seems to have been alleged in order to show that Scrape had denuded himself of assets.]\nAt one point in her testimony Mrs. Scrape said her husband owed her \u201cseveral thousand dollars\u201d when the deed was made.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "G-rieein Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Claude F. Cooper and T. J. Croivder, for appellant.",
      "G. W. Barhamv and J. Graham Sudbury, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Scrape v. Robinson, Agent.\n4-6288\n149 S. W. 2d 943\nOpinion delivered April 14, 1941.\nClaude F. Cooper and T. J. Croivder, for appellant.\nG. W. Barhamv and J. Graham Sudbury, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0264-01",
  "first_page_order": 282,
  "last_page_order": 285
}