Faulkner v. Adams

• Decision Date: 09 January 1891
• Docket Number: 14,048
• Citation: 26 N.E. 170,126 Ind. 459
• Parties: Faulkner et al. v. Adams et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

26 N.E. 170

126 Ind. 459

Faulkner et al. v. Adams et al

No. 14,048

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 9, 1891

From the Monroe Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

R. W Miers, for appellants.

E. F Ritter, L. Ritter, J. H. Louden and W. P. Rogers, for appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This opinion, in which we all concur, was prepared by the late Judge Mitchell, and expresses the views and judgment of the court.

This was a proceeding by Adams to enjoin Faulkner and others from selling certain real estate situate in Monroe county, and owned by the plaintiff, to satisfy a judgment of the superior court of Marion county, in favor of Faulkner and others against Henry D. Stringer. The evidence in the record tends to show that the land which the sheriff of Monroe county was about to sell, had been conveyed by Michael H. Spades and wife to Henry D. Stringer by deed, dated February 7th, 1885. Stringer and wife conveyed to Oliver H. Coe by deed, bearing date February the 17th, 1885, and Coe and wife conveyed to the plaintiff Adams by deed, bearing date June the 15th, 1885. Faulkner instituted suit against Stringer in the superior court of Marion county, and sued out a writ of attachment against the property of the latter. This writ was placed in the hands of the sheriff of Monroe county on the 2d day of March, 1885, and was levied upon the land in controversy on the 4th day of March, 1885. Faulkner afterwards recovered judgment against Stringer, and the real estate levied upon by virtue of the writ of attachment was ordered to be sold to pay the judgment. This suit was brought to enjoin the execution of the judgment or order of the court so far as it directed the sale of the land owned by Adams.

The sale of the land was enjoined, on the ground that Stringer had no title to the land at the time the writ was levied upon it.

The contention of the appellants is, that although the deed from Stringer to Coe appears upon its face to have been signed and acknowledged on the 17th day of February, 1885, which was prior to the issuing of the writ, its execution was not consummated by delivery until after the writ of attachment had become a lien upon the land. In the appellants' brief it is argued that these facts appear in the deposition of Henry D. Stringer, to the whole of which the attention of the court is particularly invited. After a most careful examination of the record we are unable to...