Deputy v. Mooney
| Citation | 97 Ind. 463 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,608 |
| Parties | Deputy et al. v. Mooney |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From the Jackson Circuit Court.
W. K Marshall and R. M. Patrick, for appellants.
B. H Burrill and F. Emerson, for appellee.
This action was brought by the appellee against the appellants, to recover the possession of certain real estate, situate in Jackson county, Indiana. An answer of general denial was filed to the complaint, which was in the ordinary form prescribed by the statute in such cases. The issues were tried by the court, and resulted, over a motion for a new trial, in the rendition of a judgment in favor of the appellee, for the possession of said real estate, and damages for its detention.
The only error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial. Among the causes assigned in support of the motion were, that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and that it was contrary to law.
The facts in this case, as shown by the uncontroverted evidence adduced at the trial, which is in the record, are as follows One William W. Roseberry died seized of the real estate in controversy. Afterwards, in an action for its partition, wherein his heirs were the parties, it was found that said real estate was indivisible, and, for that reason, it was ordered by the court to be sold by a commissioner appointed for that purpose, who, on the 30th day of June, 1882, pursuant to said order, sold the same for $ 900 to the appellee, who, on said day, paid to the commissioner one-third of the amount of said purchase-money, and for the residue executed to him her two notes for $ 300 each, payable, respectively, in nine and eighteen months thereafter, and thereupon he executed to her a certificate of purchase for said real estate, and reported the sale to the court, and it was, on the 13th day of September, 1882, confirmed by the court, but it does not appear by the evidence that a deed of conveyance for the property was ever executed to the appellee, or that any order was made by the court authorizing or directing its execution, or that the purchase-money had been fully paid. This action was commenced before the last instalment of the purchase-money became due. On the trial the appellee introduced in evidence, for the purpose of establishing her title to said real estate and her right of possession thereto, said certificate of purchase, and we infer, from a careful examination of the record, that the court below held that it was sufficient for that purpose, and hence rendered the judgment from which this appeal was taken.
In actions like this to recover the possession of real estate if the plaintiff fails to show title and right of possession in himself, he can not recover, even though the defendant has no title. Mull v. Orme, 67 Ind. 95. Was the appellee in this case entitled to the possession of the real estate in controversy by virtue of said certificate of purchase? The statute under which the purchase was made provides: "Whenever it shall appear to the court that the purchase-money for the land sold has been duly paid, the court shall order such commissioner or some other person to execute conveyances to the purchasers, which shall bar all claims of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blake v. Minkner
...of their own title. They must show title, though the defendants have none, or they cannot recover. Burn's Rev. 1894, § 1069; Deputy v. Mooney, 97 Ind. 463;Mull v. Orme, 67 Ind. 96. In ejectment, where the plaintiffs are tenants in common, ouster is one of the elements necessary to be establ......
-
Bryan v. Yoder
...of land at a partition sale is not entitled to possession until he obtains a deed. Stout v. McPheeters, supra; Deputy v. Mooney, 1884, 97 Ind. 463, 464; and he is not entitled to a deed until the purchase money is paid or secured. Deputy v. Mooney, supra; § 3-2420, Burns' 1946 Replacement. ......
-
Blake v. Minkner
...... their own title. They must show title though the defendants. have none, or they can not recover. Burns' Rev. 1894,. section 1069; Deputy v. Mooney, 97 Ind. 463; Mull v. Orme, 67 Ind. 95. . . In. ejectment, where the plaintiffs are tenants in common, ouster. is ......
-
The Silver Creek Cement Corporation v. The Union Lime And Cement Company
...... recover, if at all, upon the strength of his own title, and. not upon the alleged weakness of his adversary's [138. Ind. 298] title. Deputy v. Mooney, 97 Ind. 463; Roots v. Beck, 109 Ind. 472, 9 N.E. 698. We shall therefore not consider what is said in the. record or in argument as to ......