Koehler v. Haller
| Decision Date | 11 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 9036.,9036. |
| Citation | 62 Ind.App. 8,112 N.E. 527 |
| Parties | KOEHLER v. HALLER et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Allen County; Carl Yaple, Judge.
Suit by John A. Koehler against Gottlieb Haller and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
John H. Aiken and Phil B. Colerick, both of Ft. Wayne, for appellant. Owen N. Heaton, Guy Colerick, and Henry G. Hogan, all of Ft. Wayne, for appellees.
In the latter part of the year of 1899, appellant conveyed to appellee James E. K. France certain real estate in the city of Ft. Wayne, Ind., by two separate deeds, which he unsuccessfully in the court below sought to have declared mortgages, and for an accounting. The question for review arises upon the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, under which it is claimed that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. A brief statement of the complaint will be helpful to an intelligent understanding of the questions presented, which follows:
On September 5, 1899, appellant was indebted to numerous persons in the city of Ft. Wayne, among whom were appellees; and in order to secure the indebtedness and provide a fund for the payment thereof, it was agreed between appellant and appellees that appellant would convey his real estate, consisting of several parcels in different additions in the city of Ft. Wayne, a major portion of which was platted into lots, to appellees with power to sell a sufficient amount to satisfy appellant's indebtedness, with the further agreement that they would account to appellant for the balance of the proceeds not required in the payment of the same, and if any of the real estate remained unsold after the debts had been paid it was to be reconveyed to appellant; that appellees received for real estate sold the sum of $10,000, which was sufficient to and did discharge all of appellant's indebtedness; that certain described parcels of real estate remained unsold, and a reconveyance and an accounting was demanded by appellant, but that such reconveyance and accounting was refused; that the deed so far as it covered the unsold real estate was asked to be declared a mortgage, and that appellees render an accounting to appellant as to the proceeds that came into their hands, and that a commissioner be appointed to make a conveyance of the unsold real estate on failure of appellees to do so.
The issues were closed by an answer of general denial, and from the evidence admitted in support of the issues thus joined, the facts uncontroverted may be summed up as follows: Appellant at the date of the conveyance of the real estate in question and prior thereto was in failing circumstances financially, being indebted in a large sum of money to creditors residing at Ft. Wayne; that he owned considerable real estate, much of which was incumbered by mortgage; two deeds of conveyance were executed by appellant on September 5, and December 15, 1899, respectively, covering different parcels of appellant's real estate; that the conveyances were taken in the name of appellee France, who had been appellant's counsel for some time prior thereto; appellees were sureties on certain obligations due and owing by appellant.
The relation of attorney and client existing between appellant and appellee France prior to the time of the conveyance in question is a situation that forms the basis of an argument by appellant that the burden was upon appellee France under the law to show that he acted throughout the entire transaction in the utmost good faith, and that he derived no advantage by reason of the superior position he occupied; that the relation being fiduciary, a court of equity will, if necessary, in order to work out justice as between the parties, decree the existence of a constructive trust. And aside from the contention that the relationship between appellant and appellee France was fiduciary, appellant presses the further contention that the relation that existed between appellant and appellee was that of surety and principal, and while the deeds of conveyance were absolute on their face, they were no more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. American Fletcher Nat. Bank and Trust Co.
...ingredient of the trust as a fiduciary relationship between the trustee and the beneficiary. IND. CODE 30-4-1-1(a); Koehler v. Haller (1916), 62 Ind.App. 8, 112 N.E. 527 (constructive trust). We then can safely declare that a cause of action for breach of trust is, in Indiana, a claim for b......
-
Hall v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...of a fiduciary relationship involves questions of fact peculiar to the facts and circumstances of each case. Koehler v. Haller (1915), 62 Ind.App. 8, 112 N.E. 527. In the case at bar the court determined from the evidence that a fiduciary relationship existed between Hall and Nugen. Hall co......
- Koehler v. Haller