Ludwick v. Petrie
Decision Date | 10 March 1904 |
Parties | LUDWICK v. PETRIE et al. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Huntington County; James C. Branyan, Judge.
Action by John Ludwick against Margaret Petrie and another. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Lesh & Lesh, for appellant. Branyan & Feightner and G. W. Stults, for appellees.
Action by appellant for damages growing out of a breach of warranty in the deed of conveyance of certain real estate purchased by him of appellee. The complaint was in two paragraphs. The first paragraph of complaint contains averments covering the execution and delivery of the deed, the payment of the purchase price, the warranty covering 35.70 acres of land, the failure of the title to 6.70 acres of the land so conveyed and warranted, and the eviction of appellant therefrom by one holding the paramount title. The second paragraph of complaint, in addition to the averments which appear in the first paragraph, contains the following: That at the time of the purchase of the real estate appellee orally represented that a certain rail fence running south from the Maple Grove Gravel Road, near the buildings on the land conveyed, was the line fence, and formed the western boundary of said land; that such representations were false and fraudulent, and were falsely and fraudulently made, and that appellant relied upon and believe them to be true; that thereafter, and after appellant had purchased the real estate so pointed out to him, a survey was had of said land, and said line fence was removed a sufficient distance east to dispossess appellant of six acres of land. The material part of the deed, which was made a part of each paragraph of complaint, is as follows: An answer of general denial filed by appellee made the issue upon which the case was tried. The trial resulted in a judgment against appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. Leggett
...another on which recovery might be based, are erroneous. 64 C. J. 808; Columbus v. Anglin, 48 S.E. 318, 120 Ga. 785; Ludwig v. Petrie, 70 N.E. 280, 32 Ind.App. 550; 137 439; 114 So. 41; 107 So. 821. We insist with all earnestness, that instruction which purport to cover the whole case, or w......
-
Petrie v. Ludwig
...and Milo Feightner, for appellants. Lesh & Lesh, for appellee.HADLEY, P. J. This is the second appeal in this cause (see Ludwig v. Petrie, 32 Ind. App. 550, 70 N. E. 280), and is an action brought by appellee against appellants. The complaint is in two paragraphs. The first is predicated on......
- Petrie v. Ludwig
- Ludwig v. Petrie