Leary v. Moran
| Decision Date | 01 June 1886 |
| Docket Number | 12,634 |
| Parties | Leary v. Moran |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Hendricks Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
J. V Hadley, E. G. Hogate and R. B. Blake, for appellant.
C Foley, for appellee.
Appellee is charged in the complaint with having converted to his own use forty bushels of appellant's wheat, of the value of fifty dollars. Appellant has assigned as error the overruling of his demurrer to appellee's answer.
The following facts, substantially, are set up in the first paragraph of the answer: The wheat mentioned in the complaint was a part of a crop raised on appellee's farm by a cropper, who was to have the whole crop threshed at his own expense, and deliver to appellee at the machine, one-half of the amount in the bushel. After the wheat had been harvested and ricked, appellant bought the cropper's interest therein at sheriff's sale. After buying this interest he stated to appellee that he could not have the wheat threshed, and it was agreed that appellee should have it done, and that appellant would promptly reimburse him for all outlay in paying hands, and promptly pay him for the boarding of hands, threshers and horses, and for his own labor. Pursuant to that agreement, appellee had the wheat threshed, and upon the terms of the agreement thereby became entitled to receive from appellant $ 32.75.
Following these averments are the following: "That after said wheat was threshed, and pursuant to an offer of the plaintiff therefor, the defendant took seventeen sacks of the plaintiff's half of said wheat in payment and satisfaction of his bill of charges for his said outlay for said hire of said hands, and for said board of said hands and horses, and for said services of two days of the defendant, which seventeen sacks of wheat constituted the identical wheat mentioned in the complaint."
If the facts thus set up are true, and that they are true is admitted by the demurrer, it is clear that appellee is not guilty of having converted the wheat as charged in the complaint. The averments are not as specific in some particulars as they might be, but they sufficiently show the rights of the parties, their agreement in relation to the wheat, and that in pursuance of that agreement, and in payment of the amount due to appellee for the threshing, it was agreed that he should take the seventeen sacks of wheat, and that the amount so taken was the same wheat mentioned in the complaint. These same facts, we think, might have been proven under a general denial.
In order to make his case as alleged in the complaint, appellant was under the necessity of proving that the wheat was not only taken by appellee, but so...
To continue reading
Request your trial