Lord v. Bishop

• Decision Date: 07 April 1885
• Docket Number: 11,664
• Citation: 101 Ind. 334
• Parties: Lord et al. v. Bishop et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

101 Ind. 334

Lord et al. v. Bishop et al

No. 11,664

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 7, 1885

From the Madison Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

W. A Cullen, B. L. Smith and D. Moss, for appellants.

J O'Brien, for appellees.

OPINION

Mitchell J.

The controversy between the parties to this record was considered by this court in the case of Bishop v. State, ex rel., 83 Ind. 67, where the facts are fully detailed.

A second trial was had by the court, resulting in a finding and judgment for Mrs. Bishop, her husband having died after the former appeal was determined and before the second trial.

It is now argued that the finding of the court is not sustained by the evidence, and it is also contended that the court erred in some of its rulings during the progress of the trial, in respect to the admissibility of evidence.

The appellee makes the point that none of these questions are in the record, and that, therefore, this court can not examine them.

It is not made to appear by direct statement in the record, that the short-hand reporter was duly appointed and qualified as such, but this may be inferred from the fact that it is certified by the clerk that the manuscript containing the evidence, which was filed in his office, was "furnished by Ira A. Kilbourne, short-hand reporter of said court," and inasmuch as this long-hand manuscript is incorporated in a bill of exceptions, duly signed by the judge, containing a statement that "this was all the evidence given in the above entitled cause," it fairly complies with the statutory requirement.

The appellant, a creditor of Ira Bishop, brought the action to set aside a conveyance which was made to Margaret Bishop of 160 acres of land in the year 1877. The evidence tended to prove that in the year 1844 Mrs. Bishop's mother, Mrs. McCann, delivered a sum of money to Ira Bishop, who was the husband of Margaret Bishop, and directed him to proceed to the "Indian Reserve" and enter two tracts of land adjoining each other, one for her daughter Margaret, the other for her son Patrick. Mr. Bishop received the money, proceeded to the "reserve," and entered two adjoining tracts of land containing eighty acres each, taking the title to one in his own name, and the other in the name of Patrick McCann. Subsequent to this Patrick McCann exchanged his eighty on the Indian Reserve, in Howard county, with Mrs. Bishop, for her interest in some lands in Rush county which she inherited from her mother. This was also conveyed to her husband. The husband paid no part of the consideration for either tract, and the evidence tended to show that his wife had no knowledge of the fact that the title to either tract was taken in his name.

It is inferentially...