Kehr v. Hall

• Decision Date: 20 February 1889
• Citation: 20 N.E. 279,117 Ind. 405
• Parties: Kehr et al. v. Hall.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

117 Ind. 405

20 N.E. 279

Kehr et al.

v.Hall.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

February 20, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, Elkhart county; James D. Osborn, Judge.

Isaac W. Hall sued John M. Kehr et al. for conversion. Demurrer of defendants was overruled, and judgment rendered for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

H. D. Wilson, W. I. Davis, and A. S. Zook, for appellants. S. J. North, Wilbur L. Stonex, E. E. Mummert, and H. H. Dennis, for appellee.

Berkshire, J.

The complaint in this case is in two paragraphs. The first paragraph charges that the appellee, who was the plaintiff below, was appointed receiver by the Elkhart circuit court to take into his possession and hold, subject to the order of said court, certain property described in a schedule attached thereto, marked “Exhibit A;” that he took into his possession the said property, and afterwards the appellants, who were the defendants, with force and arms, wrongfully and forcibly took and carried away said property, and converted the same to their own use, it being of the value of $400. The second paragraph alleges that the appellee was appointed receiver by the Elkhart circuit court to take into his possession certain personal property described in a schedule filed therewith and attached thereto, marked “Exhibit A;” that the appellee qualified as such receiver, and afterwards demanded possession of the said property of the appellants, who had theretofore taken possession of the same; that the appellants refused to deliver the said property to the appellee, or any part of it, but wrongfully converted the same to their own use, it being of the value of $400. To each paragraph of complaint the appellants demurred.

The demurrer is very awkwardly and carelessly drawn. The second cause of demurrer assigned is: “The defendants further demur to each paragraph of plaintiff's complaint separately, for the reason that said paragraphs do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants.” This was intended, no doubt, as a separate demurrer to each paragraph, and we are inclined to so construe it; but we would be much better pleased with it if it were more artistic in form. The court overruled the demurrer to both paragraphs of the complaint, and the proper exceptions were saved. After some other proceedings were had, which we need not notice, the appellants pleaded the general denial, and with it an agreement was filed that all matters of defense might be proven without further pleading. The case was tried by the court, and a special finding made. The facts and conclusions of law are substantially as follows: That on the 5th day of April, 1883, Ann Smith brought suit in the Elkhart circuit court for support against David Smith, her husband, to which action she made one Olander Rankin a defendant, alleging in her complaint that he was indebted to her husband upon notes, secured by a chattel mortgage, hereinafter referred to, and she asked as relief that the amount of said indebtedness be applied in payment of any judgment she might recover; that Rankin was duly served with process, and was properly defended; that the husband, David Smith, was duly served with process, and appeared to said action; that on the 15th day of May, 1883, the appellee, upon the application of the plaintiff in said action, was appointed receiver, and on the 5th day of June duly qualified as such; that afterwards such proceedings were had that the plaintiff in said cause recovered a judgment against her said husband for $300, and costs, and costs, and that Rankin was indebted to him in the sum of $391, secured by chattel mortgage, recorded in Elkhart county, and that he pay the amount of plaintiff's judgment, and costs to the receiver; and the receiver was ordered to institute suits and take any action necessary for the collection of the debt and the foreclosure of the mortgage, and out of the proceeds to pay the plaintiff's judgment; that there is now due on said judgment the sum of $342.50, and $30.65 costs; that on the 5th day of April, 1883, said David Smith commenced an action before a justice of the peace against Rankin to recover the amount due on the first of the series of notes mentioned in said chattel mortgage; that Rankin appeared to said action, and thereafter such proceedings were had that on the 17th day of May, 1883, Smith obtained a judgment against Rankin for the sum of $160 and costs, and on the 21st day of May, 1883, execution was issued on said judgment, and was delivered to the appellant Kehr, who was a constable of the township wherein said judgment was rendered, who, at 6 o'clock in the morning on the 28th day of said month, served the same on the property named in said mortgage, and then in the possession of said Rankin, and sold said goods by virtue of said execution on the 8th day of June, 1883; that the notice and other proceedings down to and including the sale were...