Bischof v. Mikels
| Decision Date | 19 February 1897 |
| Docket Number | 18,177 |
| Citation | 46 N.E. 348,147 Ind. 115 |
| Parties | Bischof v. Mikels et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
Benj. Crane and A. B. Anderson, for appellant.
J. M LaRue and C. E. Lake, for appellees.
Appellant sued Franklin Mikels, Joseph A. Storms and Armstrong Ross upon an indemnity bond. Subsequent to the commencement of the action Ross died, and the appellee Franklin Mikels, having been appointed his administrator, was substituted as defendant in his place as such administrator, while he still remained a defendant in his individual capacity.
It appears from the complaint that on the day the bond was executed, December 4, 1893, the defendants, Mikels and Storms owned certain real estate in Chicago; that prior thereto, to-wit: on May 27, 1893, a former owner of the real estate mortgaged it to Swanell, of Kankakee, Illinois, to secure notes for the purchase money of said real estate; that on said December 4, 1893, said Mikels and Storms sold and conveyed by warranty deed said real estate to appellant; that in the contract of sale between these parties it was agreed by said Mikels and Storms that they would pay off said mortgage debt and release the real estate therefrom, on or before June 1, 1894; that on said 4th day of December, 1893, appellant paid and delivered to said Mikels and Storms the full consideration for the conveyance of said real estate as agreed upon; that in consideration of the full payment of the purchase price of said real estate said defendants, Mikels and Storms, as principals, and Armstrong Ross, as surety, executed the bond sued on, conditioned in the penalty of $ 5,000.00, that said Mikels and Storms would pay off said mortgage, and release said real estate from the lien thereof, on or before June 1, 1894. The breach assigned is, that they failed to pay off said mortgage, and appellant was compelled to do so, to his damage, etc. Mikels and Storms answered by a general denial, and Ross, in his lifetime, and his administrator after his death, answered, setting up substantially that Ross signed said bond at Mikels' and Storms' request, and upon their promise and agreement that before delivering said bond to appellant that other sureties, to-wit: Hopper and Wells, should sign the same. That said bond was delivered in violation of said agreement, and that appellant had notice and knowledge thereof.
The issues, closed by the reply, were tried by the court, resulting in a general finding for the plaintiff against the defendants, Mikels and Storms, and a finding in favor of the administrator of Ross. The court having overruled appellant's motion for a new trial, rendered judgment upon the finding.
The correctness of the action of the circuit court in overruling the motion for a new trial is the only question presented here by the assignment of errors for review. And the principal question made in appellant's brief on that ruling is, whether the evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the court.
It is not denied, however, on behalf of appellant, that that part of the evidence which tends to support the finding of the court, considered alone and apart from the evidence on the other side, is sufficient to support the finding. Excluding from our consideration the evidence on the other side, we find the evidence which tends to support the finding is amply sufficient for that purpose. We are required to look alone to that part of the evidence which tends to support the verdict or finding on appeal, when the error complained of is the insufficiency of the evidence to support such verdict or finding. This is so because we have no power to correct errors of fact. Our only power is to correct errors of law. Section 667, Burns' R. S. 1894 (655, R. S. 1881); Deal v. State, 140 Ind. 354, 359, 39 N.E. 930.
Whenever that part of the evidence which tends to support the verdict or finding is legally insufficient, that is, where there is an absence of some indispensable item or items of evidence essential to the plaintiff's recovery and the verdict or finding is in his favor, then such finding or verdict is an error of law. Deal v. State, supra; Roby v. Pipher, 109 Ind. 345, 9 N.E. 604; Kitch v. Schoenell, 80 Ind. 74; Butterfield v. Trittipo, 67 Ind. 338; Robinson Machine Works v. Chandler, 56 Ind. 575; Cleveland, etc., R. W. Co. v. Wynant, 134 Ind. 681, 34 N.E. 569; Keiser v. Beam, 117 Ind. 31, 19 N.E. 534; Moellering v. Kayser, 110 Ind. 533, 11 N.E. 604; Vaughan v. Godman, 103 Ind....
To continue reading
Request your trial