Edmondsen v. Friedell
| Decision Date | 05 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | 25,671 |
| Citation | 163 N.E. 89,200 Ind. 298 |
| Parties | Edmondsen et al., Receivers, v. Friedell et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. EVIDENCE---Secondary Evidence---Properly Excluded.---Since the rule in this state is that the best evidence attainable must be adduced to prove an alleged fact, testimony that a check for the purchase price of real estate was signed by one of the defendants as the president of a corporation, of which he was president and his wife secretary, was properly excluded, there being no foundation laid for secondary evidence. p. 301.
2. TRIAL---Objection to Testimony.---A statement by an attorney of a party that he did not "see how that is material here; what has that to do with the case?" does not amount to an objection to the admission of proffered testimony. p. 301.
3. TRIAL---Objection to Testimony---When Must be Made.---An objection to the admission of testimony which is not made until after the question has been fully answered presents no question for review on appeal. p. 301.
4. TRUSTS---Suit to Enforce---Plaintiffs have Burden of Proof.---In a suit to enforce a trust in real property, on the theory that it had been purchased with the funds of a corporation of which the defendants were officers, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that the account in bank on which checks were drawn for the purchase price consisted of funds of the corporation. p. 302.
5. TRUST---Establishment---Form of Bank Account.---The opening of a bank account in the name of another is not conclusive proof that will establish a trust in his favor, if the depositor did not thereby intend to do so, as the form of the account alone is not sufficient to establish the intent. p 302.
6. TRUSTS---Establishment---Bank Account in President's Name.---The fact that a bank account stood in the name of "M. W. Friedell, President of the Black Panther Oil and Refining Company" was insufficient to establish a trust in the fund in favor of the corporation, but it was necessary to resort to parol evidence to establish the trust as an ultimate fact. p. 303.
7. TRUSTS---In Bank Deposit---Proof Necessary.---Parol evidence to establish a trust in funds in bank in favor of another than the depositor must be clear, strong, unequivocal and unmistakable. p. 303.
8. TRUSTS---Establishment---Evidence Held Insufficient.---In a suit to enforce a trust in real property, on the theory that it had been purchased with the funds of a corporation of which the defendants were officers, evidence held insufficient to establish such trust. p. 303.
From Grant Circuit Court; J. F. Charles, Judge.
Suit by Lewis W. Edmondson and two others, as receivers of the Black Panther Oil and Refining Corporation, against Max W. Friedell and Carrie W. Friedell. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court. (Transferred to the Supreme Court under § 1357 Burns 1926, cl. 2).
Affirmed.
James R. Fleming and Moran & Gillespie, for appellants.
G. A Henry, G. W. Rauch and R. M. VanAtta, for appellees.
Travis J. Gemmill, J., does not participate in this opinion.
This is a suit in equity whereby appellants, receivers, ask judgment that appellees hold the real estate concerned, in trust, and for a conveyance of it to them.
Appellees, Max W. Friedell and Carrie W. Friedell, were the president and secretary, respectively, of the Black Panther Oil and Refining Corporation. Appellee Max W. Friedell contracted with one Woelfel and his wife for the purchase of the real estate in question for the purchase price of $ 25,000. The deed by the grantors was delivered to the First National Bank of Marion, Indiana, in escrow. Thereafter the deed was delivered to appellees by the bank. Appellee Max W. Friedell paid the entire purchase price for the real estate from funds deposited by him in the same bank. Appellee Carrie W. Friedell paid no part of the consideration for the purchase of the real estate. The foregoing facts were given by the court specially, by request, together with others which concern the organization of the corporation and the appointment of appellants as receivers for the corporation, theretofore adjudicated an insolvent, upon which the court stated conclusions of law, that: (1) The law is with defendants (appellees), and that plaintiffs (appellants) are not entitled to recover anything from defendants, and that the real estate is the property of defendants, free from any liens of plaintiffs; and (2) that defendants are entitled to recover costs; which were excepted to by appellants, and judgment was rendered upon the conclusions of law.
Appellants' motion for a new trial was for the causes, that the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to law, and because certain evidence was excluded and certain evidence was admitted over objection. The appeal is predicated upon the alleged errors, overruling the motion for a new trial, and the conclusions of law.
The evidence excluded was certain answers contained in the deposition of the wife of Woelfel, one of the grantors of the real estate, that the first payment for the real estate of $ 5,000 was by a check drawn on a bank in Philadelphia, the name of which she did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial