Meech v. Lamon

• Decision Date: 26 May 1885
• Parties: Meech v. Lamon.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

103 Ind. 515

1 N.E. 380

Meech

v.Lamon.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Filed May 26, 1885.

Appeal from Grant circuit court.

Cobb & Watkins, for appellant.

J. B. Kenner, for appellee.

Niblack, J.

Prior to 1873, one Corey owned a tract of land in Huntington county, and, while being such owner, he executed a mortgage upon it to one Haynes. Afterwards, William H. Meech, the appellant in this cause, became the owner of the same tract of land as the remote grantee of Corey. During the year 1873 Meech sold, and, by warranty deed, conveyed the land to William Lamon, the appellee. In December, 1877, Haynes commenced an action in the Huntington circuit court against Lamon to foreclose his mortgage, and thereafter obtained a decree of foreclosure and an order for the sale of the land. In March, 1879, the land was sold at sheriff's sale, and Haynes became the purchaser, receiving a sheriff's deed therefor after the expiration of a year from the time of his purchase. This action was commenced by Lamon against Meech in October, 1881, for a breach of the covenants contained in the latter's deed. Meech answered that on the thirtieth day of April, 1878, he was adjudged a bankrupt, and on the thirty-first day of December, 1879, had received his final discharge in bankruptcy. Lamon replied an express promise by Meech to pay the damages he had sustained after the latter's discharge in bankruptcy. A jury returned a general verdict in favor of Lamon, and answered special interrogatories as follows: “ First. When was the new promise made, if any, to pay the indebtedness in suit? Answer. Promise made after defendant filed his petition in bankruptcy. Second. What was the precise language of the new promise? A. I do not intend you shall lose it. I will make it all right. Third. To whom were the words spoken? A. They were spoken to the plaintiff in the presence of L. P. Milligan.”

The bill of exceptions shows that these interrogatories were properly submitted to the jury by the court, and that is sufficient to establish the fact here that they were so submitted. Meech moved for judgment in his favor upon the answers to special interrogatories, notwithstanding the general verdict, but his motion was overruled. He then moved for a new trial upon the ground, among others, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, but that motion was also denied. In the case of Shockey v. Mills, 71 Ind. 288, this court held in general terms that the promise by which a discharged debt is revived must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal, as well as certain and unambiguous; that there must be an expression by the discharged debtor of a clear intention to bind himself to pay the debt; that the expression of an intention to pay the debt is not sufficient; that there must be an actual promise before the debtor is bound; that an intention is but the purpose which a man forms in his own mind; that a promise is an express undertaking or agreement to carry the purpose thus formed into effect; and that a promise to revive a discharged...