Danforth v. Meeks

• Decision Date: 27 October 1911
• Docket Number: No. 21,986.,21,986.
• Citation: 96 N.E. 153,176 Ind. 400
• Parties: DANFORTH v. MEEKS.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

176 Ind. 400

96 N.E. 153

DANFORTH

v.MEEKS.

No. 21,986.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 27, 1911.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; F. J. Vurpillit, Judge.

Action by John E. Meeks against Martha A. Danforth. There was a judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed, and the case was transferred from the Appellate Court under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 1405. Reversed and remanded.

Burson & Burson, for appellant.

JORDAN, C. J.

This suit was commenced by the appellee as plaintiff in the lower court to quiet his title as against the defendant to certain described lands situated in Pulaski county, Ind., to which he claimed to have the legal title. The complaint is in two paragraphs. The first is in the usual and general form for quieting title under section 1116, Burns' 1908. The second paragraph alleges facts by which the plaintiff claims and asserts an equitable ownership in the lands therein described. The relief demanded by each paragraph is that the title to the lands be quieted and for all other and proper relief, and that the defendant be enjoined from selling or disposing of the lands in question. The defendant answered the complaint by a general denial. She also filed a cross-complaint by which she demands that her title be quieted. Upon the pleadings in question the issues were joined, and the cause was submitted to the court for trial. Upon a hearing the court found that under an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant a resultant trust was created in the real estate in controversy with the defendant as the trustee, holding at this time the undivided one-half thereof in trust for plaintiff, and herself owning the other undivided one-half, and the court finds that such trust should be declared. Upon the finding the court rendered judgment by which it adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff and the defendant are the owners of the real estate in controversy (describing it); that the defendant holds the title in her own name in trust for the plaintiff to the undivided one-half of said real estate, and that such trust should be and is hereby declared; that the defendant owns only the undivided one-half thereof in her own right. After the rendition of the judgment, the defendant moved the court for a new trial as of right, and filed an undertaking as required by the statute, which undertaking was approved by the court. The court overruled the defendant's motion for a new trial as of right, to which she excepted. She appeals, and the only error assigned is that the court erred in overruing her motion for a new trial as of right.

Appellee has failed to file any brief or present any argument in support of the ruling of the trial court. We are advised, however, by appellant's brief that the contention of appellee in the lower court was that, because the second paragraph of the complaint alleged that the defendant held the land described in trust for the plaintiff, therefore the action was not one to quiet title, and consequently the right to a new trial as of right did not apply.

[1] Of course, the appellee, as plaintiff below, could not have recovered upon the first paragraph of his complaint, wherein he set up a legal ownership to the lands, if upon the trial the...