Jordan v. Sisson
| Decision Date | 11 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | 11,768 |
| Citation | 141 N.E. 881,82 Ind.App. 128 |
| Parties | JORDAN v. SISSON ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied May 20, 1924. Transfer denied November 12 1924.
From Daviess Circuit Court; Milton S. Hastings, Judge.
Action by Samuel A. Jordan against James D. Sisson and others. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
A. J Padgett and A. A. Clark, for appellant.
Ewing R. Emision, William H. Hoover and John Rabb Emison, for appellees.
On February 10, 1909, Mary Louise Johnson and husband entered into a written contract with appellant Samuel A. Jordan and one Aaron G. Jordan, by the terms of which the Johnsons sold and agreed to convey to the Jordans a certain farm. The consideration was $ 3,600, ten dollars of which was paid at the time the contract was executed, the remainder to be paid upon the delivery of deed and abstract. On February 12, 1909, the Johnsons repudiated the contract and sold and conveyed the real estate to James D. Sisson who on the same day, reconveyed two acres thereof to Mary Louise Johnson. At the time of these conveyances, Sisson was fully advised as to the previous sale to the Jordans. The Jordans then commenced a suit against the Johnsons for specific performance of their contract, making Sisson and his wife parties defendant. A demurrer to the complaint having been sustained, the Jordans refused to plead further, and, judgment having been rendered against them, they appealed to the Appellate Court, which court reversed the judgment. See Jordan v. Johnson (1912), 50 Ind.App. 213, 98 N.E. 143. On August 5, 1914, a second trial resulted in a decree for the Jordans, that they have specific performance of the contract, the decree providing that the Johnsons and Sisson and his wife should execute deeds of conveyance within thirty days. From this judgment, the Johnsons and Sissons prayed an appeal, and, that they might remain in possession of the real estate pending appeal, executed a supersedeas bond for $ 2,000, conditioned as provided by § 679 Burns 1914, § 638 R. S. 1881, that they would well and truly prosecute the appeal, abide the judgment of the court, pay all costs adjudged against them, and all damages sustained by the Jordans for the profits, waste or damages to the land pending appeal. The judgment was affirmed (Johnson v. Jordan [1917], 66 Ind.App. 110, 115 N.E. 600), and when the opinion of the Appellate Court was certified to the trial court, the judgment defendants refused to comply with the order to convey the land to the Jordans, and on December 15, 1917, the conveyance was duly made by commissioner. After the title had been vested in the Jordans through the commissioner's deed, the Johnsons and Sissons still refused to yield possession, whereupon appellant Samuel A. Jordan, to whom for a valuable consideration had been conveyed and assigned all interest in the land and all rights under the appeal bond which originally belonged to Aaron G. Jordan, commenced an action in ejectment against the Johnsons and Sissons charging in his complaint that "the defendants unlawfully keep plaintiff out of possession" of the real estate "to his damage in the sum of $ 1,000." On January 29, 1919, a trial of the action in ejectment resulted in a judgment in favor of appellant for possession, and for damages in the sum of $ 175, which was the rental value of the real estate for the thirteen months which elapsed from the time of the conveyance by commissioner's deed to the date of the trial. Following this judgment, the defendants yielded possession and paid in full the damages assessed. On February 5, 1919, appellant commenced an action on the appeal bond given by the Johnsons and Sissons when they appealed from the judgment ordering specific performance, the principals and sureties, appellees herein, being made parties defendant. The complaint was for the recovery of the profits of the real estate pending appeal. To the complaint there was an answer in denial and plea of former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valbruna Slater Steel Corp. v. Joslyn Mfg. Co.
...which, under the issues, might have been proved, will be presumed to have been proved and adjudicated.”) (quoting Jordan v. Sisson, 82 Ind.App. 128, 141 N.E. 881, 882 (1924)).D. Between the Present Parties or Their Privies And fourth, the controversy adjudicated in the former action was bet......
-
McCarty v. Amoco Pipeline Co.
...Under the doctrine of res judicata, the judgment of the Vigo Superior Court is binding on the parties in this case. Jordan v. Sisson, 82 Ind.App. 128, 141 N.E. 881 (1924), Cited with approval in Town of Flora v. Indiana Service Corp., 222 Ind. 253, 256-57, 53 N.E.2d 161 (1944). Accordingly,......
-
Peterson v. Culver Educational Foundation
...issues, and which, under the issues, might have been proved, will be presumed to have been proved and adjudicated. Jordan v. Sisson (1924), 82 Ind.App. 128, 141 N.E. 881. This rule is perhaps best described as 'estoppel by The other branch of the subject applies where the causes of action a......
-
Whipple v. Dickey
...issues, and which, under the issues, might have been proved, will be presumed to have been proved and adjudicated. Jordan v. Sisson, 1924, 82 Ind.App. 128, 141 N.E. 881. This rule is perhaps best described as 'estoppel by The other branch of the subject applies where the causes of action ar......