Kelso v. Kelso
Decision Date | 16 October 1896 |
Docket Number | 1,888 |
Citation | 44 N.E. 1013,16 Ind.App. 615 |
Parties | KELSO v. KELSO ET AL |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied January 27, 1897, Reported at: 16 Ind.App 615 at 628.
From the Knox Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
George G. Reily and James W. Emison, for appellant.
William A. Cullop and Clarence B. Kessinger, for appellees.
This cause was transferred to this court by the Supreme Court, as belonging within this court's jurisdiction.
The appellee, Joseph B. Kelso, filed his complaint against his co-appellee, Kate Brouillette and the appellant James I. Kelso, as follows:
' Plaintiff avers that said parties thereto did pay, and become liable to pay, said notes as therein stipulated; that each and all paid the sum as therein agreed upon. Plaintiff also avers that James I. Kelso paid, of said liabilities aforesaid, the sum of $ 1,450.00, and that he, plaintiff, and said Kate Brouillette paid the sum of $ 6,000.00, to-wit, the sum of $ 3,000.00 each, and that he has refused to repay plaintiff any part thereof, or any part of the excess over and above said liabilities before said * * * be received therefor. Plaintiff says that he kept his part of said agreement as therein stipulated, and that the defendant, Kate Brouillette, also kept her part of said agreement as therein stipulated, but that the defendant, James I. Kelso, failed and refused to keep his part of the agreement as therein stipulated, in this, to-wit, that each and every one of the parties to said agreement has paid and satisfied the notes that each and every one thereto assumed and agreed to pay, and that the same has been fully satisfied and paid so far as the parties to said agreement are concerned. That the defendant, James I. Kelso, failed to keep his part of said contract in this, to-wit, that during the pendency of their said suretyship for said Jerome T. Kelso, his wife, Julia E. Kelso, was the owner as a tenant in common with Kate Brouillette and Elizabeth Brouillette, of a hundred and twenty-nine acres of real estate situated in Knox county, Indiana, of the value of ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000.00). She was the owner in fee simple of an undivided one-third thereof. And that during the pendency of their said suretyship aforesaid, said defendant, James I. Kelso aforesaid, procured Jerome T. Kelso, the husband of said Julia E. Kelso, for the sole and exclusive purpose of securing the above sum of money for which the plaintiff and defendants were surety for him, as an indemnity against loss on account of such suretyship, to induce his said wife, the said Julia E. Kelso, to convey to him the said real estate, which she then owned, to secure him and said plaintiff and said defendant, Kate Broulliette, as such surety for said Jerome T. Kelso, and that for said purpose, and only for the purpose of securing said parties against loss on account of their said suretyship for said Jerome T. Kelso, and his said wife, Julia E. Kelso, executed to said James I. Kelso, a deed of conveyance for her said real estate situated in Prairie Surveys numbers 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, in township three (3), of range ten (10) west, in Knox county, Indiana; that by said deed an undivided interest was conveyed in said real estate, and afterwards, to-wit, the said defendant, James I. Kelso, brought suit in the Knox Circuit Court against the aforesaid, Kate Brouillette and Elizabeth Brouillette, as owners as tenants in common with him in said real estate aforesaid, and as the interest which he acquired under said deed, by the judgment of the Knox Circuit Court, there was set off to him the following as the interest conveyed him by said deed, to-wit: Part of Upper Prairie Surveys 17, 18, 19 in Township number three (3) north, of range ten (10) west; bounded as follows: Beginning where the line between Upper Prairie Surveys 16 and 17 intersects the southeast line of right of way of the Indianapolis and Vincennes Railroad; thence south 32 degrees and 8 minutes east, 17 30-100 chains; between said surveys 16 and 17 to a stone from which an ash 15 inches in diameter bears north 35 3-4 degrees east, a hundred and eighty-one (181) links; thence north 75 3-4 degrees east, 6 53-100 chains to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The McCormick Harvesting Machine Company v. Smith
... ... Adm., 144 Ind. 146, 42 N.E. 1022; Lowry v ... Downey, 150 Ind. 364, 50 N.E. 79; Gifford ... v. Hess, 15 Ind.App. 450, 43 N.E. 906; ... Kelso v. Kelso, 16 Ind.App. 615, 44 N.E ... 1013; Acts 1897, p. 244 ... But the ... bill of exceptions containing the evidence is ... ...
-
McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Smith
...144 Ind. 146, 42 N. E. 1022;Lowry v. Downey, 150 Ind. 364, 50 N. E. 79;Gifford v. Hess, 15 Ind. App. 450, 43 N. E. 906;Kelso v. Kelso, 16 Ind. App. 615, 44 N. E. 1013, and 45 N. E. 1065; Acts 1897, p. 244. But the bill of exceptions containing the evidence is not in the record for other rea......
-
Campbell v. Bowen
...144 Ind. 146, 42 N. E. 1022;Lowry v. Downey, 150 Ind. 364, 50 N. E. 79;Gifford v. Hess, 15 Ind. App. 450, 43 N. E. 906;Kelso v. Kelso, 16 Ind. App. 615, 44 N. E. 1013, and 45 N. E. 1065; Acts 1897, p. 244. It not affirmatively appearing from the record that the bill of exceptions containing......
-
Ward v. Tuttle
...Churchman, 74 Ind. 311;Cravens v. Kitts, 64 Ind. 581;Loeb v. McAlister, 15 Ind. App. 643, 41 N. E. 1061, 44 N. E. 378; Kelso v. Kelso, 16 Ind. App. 615, 44 N. E. 1013, 45 N. E. 1065; Greenwood Ass'n v. Stanton, 28 Ind. App. 548, 63 N. E. 574. [3] There was evidence tending to show that the ......