Blanckenburg

Knox v. Blanckenburg

Good Law
28 Cal. App. 298·152 P. 59
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 1915Civ. No. 1344.California1,792 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ellison, J.

Knox v. Blanckenburgplaintiff, as a judgment creditor of the defendant Theodore Blanekenburg, brought this suit in equity, to have declared void as to him a deed executed by said Theodore Blanekenburg to his wife, the defendant Ellen M. Blanekenburg, said deed purporting to convey to her the real estate described in the complaint. As grounds for the relief asked, the plaintiff alleges that said deed was made at a time when the defendant, Theodore Blanekenburg, was indebted to Emil Blanekenburg, the plaintiff’s assignor; was without any valuable consideration and was made with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the plaintiff’s assignor in collecting the indebtedness due to him by the defendant, Theodore Blanekenburg. The judgment of the court was against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied and the appeal is from the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial.

The court made a finding: “That said conveyance was not made with intent to hinder, delay and defraud the said Emil Blanekenburg in the collecting of the amount due him from the said Theodore Blanekenburg,” and practically the only question upon…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.