File v. Springel

• Citation: 31 N.E. 1054,132 Ind. 312
• Decision Date: 05 October 1892
• Docket Number: 15,818
• Parties: File et al. v. Springel
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

31 N.E. 1054

132 Ind. 312

File et al. v. Springel

No. 15,818

Supreme Court of Indiana

October 5, 1892

From the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

V Bisch and C. L. Wedding, for appellants.

S. R Hornbrook and P. Maier, for appellee.

OPINION

Olds, J. The appellee, Louis Springel, brought this action against the appellants, Josephine File and William F. File, her husband.

The complaint is in two paragraphs--the first charging the fraudulent taking of appellee's money and property, amounting to some twenty-five hundred dollars, and appropriating the same to the purchase of real estate, and taking the title to the same in the name of Josephine File, and asking judgment, and to have a lien declared on the real estate so purchased; the second paragraph asking for judgment for the money so appropriated by appellants. Issues were joined on the complaint, and a set-off pleaded to the amount of $ 914.70. There was a trial by the court, resulting in a judgment in favor of the appellee for seven hundred and fifty dollars, and a decree that the same was a lien on the real estate.

The appellants first moved the court to require the causes of action to be separated, which was overruled, and the appellants then filed a demurrer to the complaint, stating as a cause of demurrer that there was a misjoinder of causes of action, and the demurrer was overruled.

These rulings of the court were harmless, and constitute no error for which the judgment can be reversed.

The next error assigned and discussed relates to the ruling of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. It is insisted that there is no evidence to support the finding by the court, either as to the amount of damages assessed, or that the money converted was used in the purchase of the real estate, the title to which was taken in the name of Mrs. File. We have read the evidence, and can not concur in this theory of counsel for the appellants.

It is true the evidence is contradictory. The stories related by some of the witnesses, both for the appellee and the appellants, are of such a character as to appear somewhat unreasonable, and lead one to doubt the truthfulness of them. It is a case illustrating the wisdom of the well settled rule of this court that it will not weigh the evidence when it is contradictory; that the court trying the cause is best able to judge of the credibility of the witnesses and arrive at the real truth in the case.

There is evidence to sustain the theory that the appellants were acting in conjunction and in harmony in obtaining the custody of the money from the appellee and in using it for the purchase of the real estate, taking the title in the name...