Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Cook v. Mcmicking

    Transféré par

    jeyarelsi
    144 vues1 page
    The case involves a piece of land that Edward Cook obtained in 1904 and then transferred to his wife Nellie Louise Cook in the same year. In 1911, Edward became indebted and a judgment was rendered against him. An execution was issued to sell the land to satisfy the debt, but Nellie filed an injunction claiming she was the absolute owner. The lower court granted the injunction. On appeal, the court held that the transfer from Edward to Nellie was valid as the appellants had no relationship to the parties at the time of transfer and no rights or interest in the property, so they could not challenge the validity of the transfer. The judgment was affirmed.

    Description originale:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The case involves a piece of land that Edward Cook obtained in 1904 and then transferred to his wife Nellie Louise Cook in the same year. In 1911, Edward became indebted and a judgment was rendered against him. An execution was issued to sell the land to satisfy the debt, but Nellie filed an injunction claiming she was the absolute owner. The lower court granted the injunction. On appeal, the court held that the transfer from Edward to Nellie was valid as the appellants had no relationship to the parties at the time of transfer and no rights or interest in the property, so they could not challenge the validity of the transfer. The judgment was affirmed.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    144 vues1 page

    Cook v. Mcmicking

    Transféré par

    jeyarelsi
    The case involves a piece of land that Edward Cook obtained in 1904 and then transferred to his wife Nellie Louise Cook in the same year. In 1911, Edward became indebted and a judgment was rendered against him. An execution was issued to sell the land to satisfy the debt, but Nellie filed an injunction claiming she was the absolute owner. The lower court granted the injunction. On appeal, the court held that the transfer from Edward to Nellie was valid as the appellants had no relationship to the parties at the time of transfer and no rights or interest in the property, so they could not challenge the validity of the transfer. The judgment was affirmed.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 1

    Cook v. Mcmicking (Joan) March 3, 1914 G.R. No. L-8913 NELLIE LOUISE COOK, vs. J.

    MCMICKING, sheriff of Manila, MORELAND, J. FACTS: The case involves a piece of land that was obtained in June 1904 by Edward Cook. In August of the same year, Edward, through an instrument in writing in the form and manner required by Act No. 496, transferred to his wife, Nellie Louise Cook (plaintiff), the land in question. In 1911, Edward became indebted to Johnson in the sum of P10,000, the purchase price of certain lands. A judgment was rendered by CFI Rizal in the case Johnson et al. vs. Edward Cook against Edward Cook, for the sum of P10,000. An execution was then issued, the land was levied upon, and the same was advertised for sale. Nellie, filed a petition for injunction to permanently prohibit the sale of said land. She claimed that: she is the absolute owner of a piece of land; the land is registered in her name under the Torrens Law Certificate No. 130 CFI Manila granted the injunction, restraining the appellants from selling the property. Appeal was filed. Appellants claim that the transfer was void under article 1458 of the Civil Code and therefore, the property still remains the property of Edward and subject to levy under execution against him. ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer was void / Whether or not the land was Edwards property and can be sold HELD: The transfer was valid and thus, not subject to levy and sale under the execution. But the point is that the appellants do not even have the position challenge the validity of the transfer. RATIO: They bore absolutely no relation to the parties to the transfer at the time it occurred and had no rights or interest inchoate, present, remote, or otherwise, in the property in question at the time the transfer occurred. Although certain transfers from husband to wife or from wife to husband are prohibited in the article referred to, such prohibition can be taken advantage of only two person who bear such a relation to the parties making the transfer with their rights or interest. Unless such a relationship appears the transfer cannot be attacked.

    DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi