Barrett v. Lewis
| Citation | 5 N.E. 910,106 Ind. 120 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1886 |
| Docket Number | 12,485 |
| Parties | Barrett v. Lewis |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From the Marion Superior Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
H Dailey, for appellant.
R. E Smith, for appellee.
Hester A. Lewis conveyed a tract of land in Marion county to Gottfried Muhlman, and to secure part of the purchase-price took a mortgage. Subsequently she obtained a decree of foreclosure, and upon a sale of the land made in pursuance of the decree, she became the purchaser, and received from the sheriff a certificate of purchase, in due form. Before the period for redemption expired, she sold and assigned the certificate, and all her rights thereunder, to Lucy B Barrett, who paid part of the consideration for the assignment in cash, and for the residue executed her promissory note, due in two years. It was stipulated in the note that it was given for "purchase-money for real estate."
At the expiration of the year for redemption, which was about four months after taking the assignment, Mrs. Barrett received a sheriff's deed upon the certificate, and went into possession of, and has ever since continued to own, the land.
The note given in part payment for the assignment of the certificate remaining unpaid, suit was brought by Mrs. Lewis to enforce a vendor's lien upon the land. Upon a special finding of facts, of which the foregoing is the substance the superior court at special term stated conclusions of law, upon which a decree was given declaring and enforcing a vendor's lien for the amount due upon the note. This judgment was affirmed upon appeal to the general term, and the sole question here is whether, upon the transaction stated in the special findings, a vendor's lien resulted?
The lien which arises in favor of the vendor of land, or of the person to whom purchase-money is due, is peculiarly of equitable cognizance. Equity has regard in such cases as in others, for the substance, and not the mere form, of the transaction. Disregarding form, a court of equity will not permit substantial equities, which are clearly established, to be defeated by the interposition of merely nominal or technical distinctions. If, upon looking through the transaction, it appears that a debt is in fact part of the purchase-price of land acquired in the transaction out of which the debt arose, no other obstacle intervening, a lien will be declared upon the land so acquired, in favor of the person to whom such debt is due. This is clearly the result of the well considered case of Dwenger v. Branigan, 95 Ind. 221, and the authorities there cited.
It is elaborately argued that a certificate of purchase vests no title to the land in the holder, and that the transfer of the certificate did not create the relation of vendor and vendee between the assignor and assignee. It may be conceded that the certificate of purchase did not of itself vest the holder with a legal title, and that the assignor was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Sickle v. Keck, 4359.
...think not. Equity will look through the transaction and consider not alone its form, but also its substance. We quote from Barrett v. Lewis, 106 Ind. 120, 5 N.E. 910, the following: ‘The lien which arises in favor of the vendor of land, or of the person to whom purchase money is due, is pec......
-
Zeiser v. Cohn
...14 South. 876;Francis v. Wells, 2 Colo . 660; Mitchell v. Butt, 45 Ga. 162; Koch v. Roth, 150 Ill. 212, 223, 37 N. E. 317;Barrett v. Lewis, 106 Ind. 120, 5 N. E. 910;Pruitt v. Pruitt, 91 Ind. 595;Mize v. Barnes, 78 Ky. 506;De L'Isle v. Succession of Moss, 34 La. Ann. 164;Kilbourne v. Wiley,......
-
Borror v. Carrier
...from the transactions between the parties, and is manifested by all the circumstances attending each particular case.” Barrett v. Lewis, 106 Ind. 120, 5 N. E. 910;Dwenger, Bishop, v. Branigan, 95 Ind. 221. “Equity regards substance rather than form, and that as done which ought to have been......
-
Simmons v. Meyers
...and vendee is not necessary to the creating and existence of the lien in favor of one party against the lands of another. Barrett v. Lewis, 106 Ind. 120, 5 N. E. 910;Johns v. Sewell, 33 Ind. 1;Fleece v. O'Rear, 83 Ind. 200;Dwenger v. Branigan, 95 Ind. 221. “A vendor's lien is an ancient rul......