Julian v. Bliss

• Decision Date: 13 November 1924
• Docket Number: 11,850
• Citation: 145 N.E. 442,82 Ind.App. 597
• Parties: JULIAN ET AL. v. BLISS ET AL
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

145 N.E. 442

82 Ind.App. 597

JULIAN ET AL. v. BLISS ET AL

No. 11,850

Court of Appeals of Indiana

November 13, 1924

Rehearing denied February 18, 1925. Transfer denied March 31 1925.

From Cass Circuit Court; Henry H. Vinton, Special Judge.

Action for partition by Simeon M. Bliss against Sarah Julian and others, in which Edward B. Bliss filed a cross-complaint to quiet title to a part of the land. From a judgment for cross-complainant and partitioning the remainder of the land the plaintiff and the other defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Long & Yarlott, for appellants.

Kistler, Kistler & McHale, for appellees.

OPINION

MCMAHAN, J.

Complaint by appellee Simeon M. Bliss against his coappellees and appellants for partition and to quiet title to 685 acres of land in Cass county, alleged in the complaint to have been owned by William O. Bliss at the time of his death. Appellee Edward B. Bliss filed a cross-complaint alleging that he was owner in fee of eighty-five acres of the land described in the complaint and asking that the title thereto be quieted in him.

From a decree in favor of Edward B. Bliss quieting his title to the eighty-five acres and partitioning the remainder of the land, appellants appeal and contend that the decision of the court in favor of the cross-complainant is not sustained by sufficient evidence, that it is contrary to law and that the court erred in admitting certain evidence.

The evidence is sufficient to establish the following facts: Appellants and certain of the appellees are nephews and nieces and the only heirs of William O. Bliss; that William O. Bliss being the owner of the eighty-five acres in controversy acknowledged a deed conveying the same to Edward B. Bliss who was not present when the deed was signed and acknowledged. After this deed was acknowledged, the officer before whom it was acknowledged handed it to the grantor William O. Bliss. It was never recorded. Its loss was proved and there is no direct evidence that it was or was not delivered to the grantee.

Lemuel R. Day testified that while he was a justice of the peace William O. Bliss came to his office with a prepared deed conveying the eighty-five acres to Edward B. Bliss, that William O. Bliss signed and acknowledged the deed in his presence, that he, the witness, read the deed and that at that time he had a conversation with Mr. Bliss in which the latter said: "I want Ed. Bliss to have that land. If I make him a deed for it in my lifetime I know he would get it." The plaintiff Simeon M. Bliss, on being asked about a conversation which he had with William O. Bliss concerning the land in controversy, testified as follows: "Well, I said this would be a nice place to build a house in. Half a block off the road, dust won't get them. You had better give me that so I can get married, settle down and...