Diggs v. Way
|51 N.E. 429,22 Ind.App. 617
|14 October 1898
|DIGGS ET AL. v. WAY ET AL
|Court of Appeals of Indiana
Rehearing denied June 30, 1899, Reported at: 22 Ind.App. 617 at 620.
From the Randolph Circuit Court.
B. F Marsh, E. S. Jaqua and Engle & Parry, for appellants.
S. A Canada, J. W. Newton and G. H. Ward, for appellees.
It is assigned as error that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint contained two paragraphs. The court in its special finding and judgment treated the case as an action against the appellants for the recovery of damages for the wrongful conversion to their own use of a certain stock of merchandise. The appellants were shown in the second paragraph of complaint to have obtained possession of the goods through purchase from others, not parties, who had bought them and taken possession under a sale on execution against an owner of the goods, one Lindsey L. Ludwick, by whom they had been mortgaged to the appellees, before the issuing of the execution, to secure certain indebtedness of the mortgagor to the mortgagees. A copy of the chattel mortgage was filed with the original complaint, and was referred to in each paragraph as a part thereof marked as an exhibit; and it was alleged in each paragraph that the mortgage was duly recorded within ten days after its execution in the chattel mortgage record, the volume and page being specified, of Randolph county, Indiana, "the county in which said mortgaged property was situated at the time of the execution of said chattel mortgage."
In the first paragraph of the complaint no mention was made of the sale on execution, but it was alleged that, subsequent to the execution and recording of the mortgage, the goods passed from the possession of said Ludwick into the possession of the appellants, under a pretended claim of ownership therein. We state no more of the contents of the lengthy pleadings than we deem proper for the decision of the particular question presented in argument before us.
The case having been tried by the court below as an action in tort, the complaint is to be treated not as a complaint on the mortgage, and the mortgage can not be regarded as the foundation of the action within the meaning of the statute section 365 Burns 1894, section 362 Horner 1897, which provides: It is well settled by repeated decisions that an improper exhibit will not be considered in examining a pleading for the purpose of determining the question as to the sufficiency of the facts stated. Such exhibit can not supply any averment omitted in the pleading. Knight v. Flatrock, etc., Co., 45 Ind. 134; Wilson v. Vance, 55 Ind. 584; Whipple v. Shewalter, 91 Ind. 114; Conwell v. Conwell, 100 Ind. 437; Huseman v. Sims, 104 Ind. 317, 4 N.E. 42. However necessary a written instrument may be as evidence in support of a plaintiff's suit, it is not a proper exhibit if the action be not founded on the instrument. Treadway v. Cobb, 18 Ind. 36; Rausch v. Trustees, etc., 107 Ind. 1, 8 N.E. 25; Barrett v. Johnson, 2 Ind.App. 25, 27 N.E. 983. In Ross v. Menefee, 125 Ind. 432, 25 N.E. 545, it was held that a complaint for the wrongful conversion of personal property, the plaintiff's right in...
To continue readingRequest your trial
Diggs v. Way
...22 Ind.App. 61751 N.E. 429DIGGS et al.v.WAY et al.1Appellate Court of Indiana.Oct. 14, Appeal from circuit court, Randolph county; Albert O. Marsh, Judge. Action by Francis M. Way and others against Frank Diggs and others for the conversion of mortgaged property. From a judgment for plainti......
- Niehaus v. Cooper