Crawford v. Hazelrigg

Citation117 Ind. 63, 18 N.E. 603
Case DateNovember 26, 1888
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

117 Ind. 63
18 N.E. 603

Crawford et ux.
v.
Hazelrigg.1

Supreme Court of Indiana.

November 26, 1888.


Appeal from circuit court, Decatur county; S. A. Bonner, Judge.

Action to foreclose a mortgage brought by Charles Hazelrigg against William R. Crawford and Emma P. Crawford, his wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.


Miller & Gavin, for appellants. Ewing & Ewing, for appellee.

Howk, C. J

This was a suit by appellee, Hazelrigg, as plaintiff, to foreclose a certain indemnifying mortgage alleged to have been executed to him by the appellants, William R. and Emma P. Crawford, on certain parcels of real estate in Decatur county, Ind. The mortgage sued on was dated and acknowledged on the 23d day of October, 1877, and was recorded in the proper recorder's office on the 31st day of August, 1878. It was stipulated in such mortgage that it was given “to secure and hold the said Hazelrigg harmless from all liability as indorser on a certain promissory note for the sum of $2,300, dated October 1, 1877, due in four months after date, payable to the Citizens' National Bank of Greensburgh, Ind., with 10 per cent. interest from maturity, and providing for 5 per cent. attorney's fees, signed by the said Will. R. Crawford, ‘Hazelrigg Carriage Company,’ ‘Hazelrigg Carriage Works,’ Newton Hazelrigg, and J. F. Hazelrigg, and indorsed by the said mortgagee; and the mortgagors expressly agree to pay the sum of money above secured, and hold the said mortgagee harmless therefrom, without relief from valuation or appraisement laws.” In his complaint plaintiff alleged, among other things, that at the date of said note and mortgage he was, and at all times since had been, solvent and able to pay said debt, and that the other parties to said note had wholly failed to pay the same, or any part thereof, although it had become due in four months after its date; that at the commencement of this suit all the parties to said note were insolvent, except the plaintiff and defendant William R. Crawford; that said Crawford had left the state of Indiana, and was then a resident of the state of Ohio, and had no property within this state subject to execution, except the last two parcels of real estate described in said mortgage; and that the parcel of real estate first described in said mortgage was incumbered by and had been sold to satisfy a mortgage prior to the mortgage sued on herein; wherefore, etc. the case was put at issue and submitted to the court for final hearing, and at defendants' request the court made a special finding of facts herein, and thereon stated its conclusion of law in favor of the plaintiff. Over defendants' exceptions to its conclusion of law the court rendered its final judgment for plaintiff, and decreed the foreclosure of the mortgage in suit, etc. In this court, defendant Emma P. Crawford has separately assigned errors, which call in question the rulings of the trial court in sustaining plaintiff's demurrers to each of the first and second paragraphs of her separate answer. In their brief of this cause defendants' learned counsel have discussed together the questions presented

[18 N.E. 604]

here by these alleged errors, and we will consider and decide such questions in the same manner. In the first paragraph of her separate answer, defendant Emma P. Crawford alleged that she then was, as she was at and prior to the execution of the mortgage sued on, a married woman, being the wife of her co-defendant, William R. Crawford; that no part of the indebtedness said mortgage was given to secure was her individual debt, or the individual debt of her said husband, but was the debt of a firm of which he was a member; that after the execution of said mortgage, to-wit, on the ------ day of ------, 187-, the note described in such mortgage was renewed by the several makers thereof, except John F. Hazelrigg, who, by and with the plaintiff's consent, and without the knowledge and consent of said defendant, failed to sign said note as a maker,-wherefore she said that, the debt having been altered and changed without her consent, she was released; and she asked that the title to her interest in said real estate might be quieted. In the second paragraph of her separate answer said defendant alleged substantially the same facts as in the first paragraph, except that she averred in such second paragraph...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1912
    ...Gleason, 11 Conn. 160, 27 Am. Dec. 721; Birnie v. Main, 29 Ark. 591; Browne v. Browne, 17 Fla. 607, 35 Am. Rep. 96; Crawford v. Hazelrigg, 117 Ind. 63, 18 N. E. 603, 2 L. R. A. 139;Kellar v. Sinton's Ex'r, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 307;Duke v. Story, 116 Ga. 388, 42 S. E. 722; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 ......
  • Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1912
    ...11 Conn. 160 (27 Am. Dec. 721); Birnie v. Main, 29 Ark. 591; Browne v. Browne, 17 Fla. 607 (35 Am. Rep. 96); Crawford v. Hazelrigg, 117 Ind. 63 (18 N.E. 603, 2 L. R. A. 139); Kellar v. Sinton's Ex'r, 14 B. Mon. 307; Duke v. Story, 116 Ga. 388 (42 S.E. 722); Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195 (20......
  • Tennant v. Hulet , No. 9326.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 20, 1917
    ...Adm'r, v. Blake et al., 106 Ind. 332, 6 N. E. 833;Post v. Losey, 111 Ind. 74, 12 N. E. 121, 60 Am. Rep. 677;Crawford v. Hazelrigg, 117 Ind. 63, 18 N. E. 603;Nichol v. Henry, 98 Ind. 34;Catterlin v. Armstrong, 79 Ind. 514;Id., 101 Ind. 258;Swatts v. Bowen, 141 Ind. 322, 40 N. E. 1057;Leonard......
  • Heiney v. Lontz
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 8, 1897
    ...are abundant. Maher v. Martin, 43 Ind. 314;Thomas v. Passage, 54 Ind. 106;Putnam v. Tennyson, 50 Ind. 456;Crawford v. Hazelrigg, 117 Ind. 63, 18 N. E. 603;Pierce v. Osman, 79 Ind. 259;Keadle v. Siddens, 5 Ind. App. 8, 31 N. E. 539. The act enlarging the powers of married women in contractin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1912
    ...Gleason, 11 Conn. 160, 27 Am. Dec. 721; Birnie v. Main, 29 Ark. 591; Browne v. Browne, 17 Fla. 607, 35 Am. Rep. 96; Crawford v. Hazelrigg, 117 Ind. 63, 18 N. E. 603, 2 L. R. A. 139;Kellar v. Sinton's Ex'r, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 307;Duke v. Story, 116 Ga. 388, 42 S. E. 722; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 ......
  • Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1912
    ...11 Conn. 160 (27 Am. Dec. 721); Birnie v. Main, 29 Ark. 591; Browne v. Browne, 17 Fla. 607 (35 Am. Rep. 96); Crawford v. Hazelrigg, 117 Ind. 63 (18 N.E. 603, 2 L. R. A. 139); Kellar v. Sinton's Ex'r, 14 B. Mon. 307; Duke v. Story, 116 Ga. 388 (42 S.E. 722); Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195 (20......
  • Tennant v. Hulet , No. 9326.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 20, 1917
    ...Adm'r, v. Blake et al., 106 Ind. 332, 6 N. E. 833;Post v. Losey, 111 Ind. 74, 12 N. E. 121, 60 Am. Rep. 677;Crawford v. Hazelrigg, 117 Ind. 63, 18 N. E. 603;Nichol v. Henry, 98 Ind. 34;Catterlin v. Armstrong, 79 Ind. 514;Id., 101 Ind. 258;Swatts v. Bowen, 141 Ind. 322, 40 N. E. 1057;Leonard......
  • Heiney v. Lontz
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 8, 1897
    ...are abundant. Maher v. Martin, 43 Ind. 314;Thomas v. Passage, 54 Ind. 106;Putnam v. Tennyson, 50 Ind. 456;Crawford v. Hazelrigg, 117 Ind. 63, 18 N. E. 603;Pierce v. Osman, 79 Ind. 259;Keadle v. Siddens, 5 Ind. App. 8, 31 N. E. 539. The act enlarging the powers of married women in contractin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT