Opinion
06-02-1892
SONN et al. v. STEINHAUSER et ux.
J. Garrick, for complainants. Henry Puster, for defendants.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Bill by Hyman Sonn and Henry Sonn against Johann Michael Steinhauser and Marianna Steinhauser, his wife, to subject to the lien of a judgment against the wife certain lands standing in the name of the husband. Relief prayed for granted.
J. Garrick, for complainants.
Henry Puster, for defendants.
PITNEY, V. C. This is a bill by judgment creditors of defendant Mary Steinhauser to subject to the lien of the judgment, lands, the title to which stands in the name of her husband, Michael Steinhauser. The husband for several years prior to April, 1877, had been engaged in the business of a baker in Jersey City. March 27, 1877, he conveyed his bakery business, implements, stock, and good will to Anton Heifer, and on April 6th Heifer conveyed the same to Mrs. Steinhauser. These conveyances were recorded in the register's office, and resulted in vesting the bakery-implements of trade and stock with the good will of the business in Mrs. Steinhauser. The business continued to be conducted after this transfer, as before, in the name of "M. Steinhauser." In 1881 the husband purchased from complainants divers goods in the name of "M. Steinhauser," which were used in the bakery, and, not being paid for, complainants brought suit in the district court, and recovered judgment against the defendant Mary Steinhauser on the 11th of January, 1884. Before bringing suit, they, by their counsel, examined the records, and found the title of the bakery and business in the wife, under the bills of sale above mentioned. At the trial, defendant Michael appeared and defended for his wife, and set up and declared that he was the real debtor, and not his wife, and that he bought the goods on his own credit. The justice, nevertheless, gave judgment against the wife. On July, 1887, the defendant Michael took title in his own name from one Rademan, of the land upon which complainants seek a lien, making a cash payment on it, partly out of the proceeds of the bakery and partly by money borrowed of a New York firm who supplied him with materials for his bakery, and who seem to have trusted the husband alone. In the mean time the business was carried on as before, and no reconveyance was ever made of the fixtures and good will by the wife to the husband. I am satisfied from these circumstances and the evidence of the husband that he took the title in his own name, rather than that of his wife, for the purpose of escaping the lien of complainants' judgment, and that if complainants had yielded to his request to take judgment against him instead of his wife the title would have been taken in his wife's name. The transfer to his wife in 1877 may have been made for the purpose of defeating his then creditors, but does not appear to have been attacked by any. The title to the business and its good will having been permitted to stand in the name of the wife all these years, the husband is estopped, as against her creditors, from denying that it belonged to her, and that she was entitled to its proceeds. As against the complainants, he cannot be permitted to deny that he invested his wife's money in this land, and that his wife is the real debtor to the merchants who loaned a part of the money to pay for it. Complainants are entitled to relief.