Lane v. Utz

Citation29 N.E. 772,130 Ind. 235
PartiesLANE et al. v. UTZ.
Decision Date16 January 1892
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Clinton county; ALLEN E. PAIGE, Judge.

Action by Jesse Lane and others against Joseph H. Utz. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

James N. Sims, for appellants. P. W. Gard, for appellee.

COFFEY, J.

This was an action by the appellants against the appellee in the Clinton circuit court to recover the possession of the real estate described in the complaint. The evidence in the cause consists of an agreed statement of facts. The appellee demurred to the evidence, which demurrer was sustained by the court, and judgment was rendered against the appellants for costs. The facts in the case, as disclosed by the agreed facts, are that on the 24th day of July, 1866, Joseph Lane was the owner in fee of the land in controversy, and on that day conveyed the same to his unmarried daughter, Elizabeth Lane. Elizabeth subsequently intermarried with the appellee Utz, and died intestate without issue, leaving the appellee, her husband, as her only heir at law. Prior to her death her father, Joseph Lane, departed this life. The consideration mentioned in the deed was never in fact paid, nor intended to be paid, the land being a gift, and the consideration inserted in the deed was intended to correspond with the sum advanced by Lane to his other children. The appellants are the next of kin to the said Elizabeth. The sole question presented for our consideration is the construction of the deed executed by Joseph Lane to his daughter, Elizabeth. So much of the deed as is material to the controversy here is as follows: “This indenture witnesseth that Joseph Lane and Mary Lane, his wife, of Clinton county, in the state of Indiana, convey and warrant to Elizabeth Lane, and to the heirs of her body, of Clinton county, in the state of Indiana, for the sum of four thousand dollars, the following real estate in Clinton county, in the state of Indiana, to-wit: *** In witness whereof,” etc. It is contended by the appellants that this deed conveyed an estate to Elizabeth Lane, subject to a reversion to the grantor or his heirs in the event she should die without children; while, on the other land, it is contended by the appellee that it vested in her an absolute estate in fee-simple. In our opinion, the case of Tipton v. La Rose, 27 Ind. 484, and the case of King v. Rea, 56 Ind. 1, are decisive of the question here involved. In the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • McCllen v. Lehker
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 5, 1919
    ...Ind. 506, 9 N. E. 467;Allen v. Craft, 109 Ind. 476, 9 N. E. 919, 58 Am. Rep. 425;Taney v. Fahnley, 126 Ind. 88, 25 N. E. 882;Lane v. Utz, 130 Ind. 235, 29 N. E. 772;Reddick v. Lord, 131 Ind. 336, 30 N. E. 1085;Perkins v. McConnell, 136 Ind. 384, 36 N. E. 121;Waters v. Lyon, 141 Ind. 170, 40......
  • Vaugilan v. Hollingsworth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 2, 1922
    ...... force of the deed itself. The fact that the word. "heirs" immediately follows the named grantee. conclusively proves that a limitation was only intended, and. nothing more. (C. J., sec. 279, p. 300; Howe v. Howe, 94 Kan. 67, 145 P. 873; Lane v. Utz, 130. Ind. 235, 29 N.E. 772; Tipton v. La Rose, 27 Ind. 484; Bonnell v. McLaughlin, 173 Cal. 213, 159 P. 590; McNeer v. Patrick, 93 Neb. 746, 142 N.W. 283;. Cox v. Newby, 101 S.C. 193, 85 S.E. 369; Garrett v. Wiltse, 252 Mo. 699, 161 S.W. 694.). . . The. clause, as a ......
  • McCllen v. Sehker
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 5, 1919
    ...... Smith, Exr., v. McCormick (1874), 46 Ind. 135; King v. Rea (1877), 56 Ind. 1;. Fletcher v. Fletcher (1882), 88 Ind. 418;. Shimer v. Mann, supra;. Hochstedler v. Hochstedler (1886), 108 Ind. 506, 9 N.E. 467; Allen v. Craft,. supra; Taney v. Fahnley. (1890), 126 Ind. 88, 25 N.E. 882; Lane v. Utz (1892), 130 Ind. 235, 29 N.E. 772;. Reddick v. Lord (1892), 131 Ind. 336, 30. N.E. 1085; Perkins v. McConnell [70. Ind.App. 443] (1894), 136 Ind. 384, 36 N.E. 121;. Waters v. Lyon, supra;. Bonner v. Bonner (1902), 28 Ind.App. 147,. 62 N.E. 497; Chamberlain v. Runkle,. supra; Teal v. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT