Meehan v. Meehan's Estate, 14683.
| Decision Date | 21 September 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 14683.,14683. |
| Citation | 98 Ind.App. 9,186 N.E. 908 |
| Parties | MEEHAN v. MEEHAN'S ESTATE et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Tippecanoe Circuit Court; O. B. Ratcliff, Special Judge.
Action by Anna E. Meehan, administratrix of the estate of Henry Meehan, deceased, against the estate of John Meehan and Daniel P. Flanagan, administrator with the will annexed of John Meehan, deceased. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Joseph B. Ross, of La Fayette, for appellant.
A. K. Sills, of La Fayette, for appellees.
This was an action commenced by the appellant filing against the appellee a claim based upon a promissory note signed by John Meehan in his lifetime, payable to his brother Henry Meehan, dated March 16, 1883, and due in one year after date. The claim was filed November 26, 1928, and was disallowed and transferred to the issue docket for trial. It was then amended, and trial was had before the court upon the amended claim. It was defended upon the grounds, first, that the note had been paid in full, and, secondly, that it was barred by the statute of limitations. There was a general finding by the court in favor of the appellees and judgment rendered accordingly.
A motion for a new trial was filed timely and overruled, and an exception taken, and this appeal prayed and perfected. The causes in the motion are that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law. The only error assigned and relied upon for reversal is the ruling of the court on the motion for a new trial.
The amended claim, omitting caption and verification, is as follows:
“566.00 Lafayette, Ind. March 16, 1883
“One year after date I promise to pay to the order of Henry Meehan, Five Hundred and Sixty-six Dollars, at the First National Bank of Lafayette, Indiana. With interest at the rate of 6 per cent from date until paid, and 10 per cent attorney's fees. Value received, without any relief from valuation or appraisement laws. The drawers and endorsers severally waive presentment for payment, protest and notice of protest and nonpayment of this note, and all defenses on the ground of any extension of time of its payment that may be given by the holder or holders to them or either of them.
“Dated March 16, 1883.
“John Meehan
“Claimant alleges that said John Meehan in his lifetime made cash payments upon said note, as set forth by endorsements on the back of said note, as follows, to wit:
Endorsements
+--------------------------------+
¦March 4, 1903-By cash ¦$25.00¦
+-------------------------+------¦
¦January 30, 1913-By cash ¦$25.00¦
+-------------------------+------¦
¦February 18, 1920-By cash¦$10.00¦
+-------------------------+------¦
¦January 5, 1924-By cash ¦$15.00¦
+-------------------------+------¦
¦January 25, 1926-By cash ¦$25.00¦
+--------------------------------+
“Claimant alleges that said note, which is the foundation of this action, provides for the payment of ten (10%) per cent. attorney's fees, and that a reasonable attorney fee in this behalf would be ten (10%) per cent. of said claim, or a total of two hundred twelve and 42/100 ($212.42) dollars, and that there is now due and payable upon said note, in principal, interest and attorney's fees, the sum of two thousand three hundred thirty-six and 81/100 ($2,336.81) dollars.”
The record discloses that the appellant, Anna E. Meehan, administratrix of the estate of Henry Meehan, deceased, is the second administratrix of said estate, and that she received her letters on or about March 2, 1928. John Meehan, the maker of the note in controversy, died testate in 1928, and Daniel P. Flanagan was appointed by the Tippecanoe circuit court as administrator of his estate with the will annexed. Both of said estates are still pending.
[1][2] As a preliminary, we may say that it is a familiar rule needing no citation of authorities in support of it that this court will not weigh conflicting evidence and substitute its judgment thereon for the judgment of the trial court, and, if there be competent evidence or legitimate inferences that may be drawn from such evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court, its judgment will not be disturbed on appeal.
The note in question was given by the decedent, John Meehan, to his brother, the decedent, Henry Meehan, and bears date of March 16, 1883. Henry died intestate March 5, 1886, leaving surviving him a widow, Mary A. Meehan, four daughters, and one son, Harry, as his sole and only heirs at law. His widow was appointed administratrix of his estate by the Tippecanoe circuit court. She filed her inventory and appraisement, and the note in question was not included. The usual proceedings were had in the estate, and it was closed and the administratrix discharged on the 25th day of April, 1887. In the trial of the instant case, the said widow testified that at the time she made the inventory she knew of the occurrence of her husband making a loan to his brother Henry in 1883. She also testified that she found the note along about 1903 in an old book. It is to be noted that the note was not inventoried in the estate of her husband even as a lost note. She testified that she could not find it and that her husband had never said anything to her about it. She, her daughter Anna, and John Meehan were present she said when the first four payments were made on the note by John Meehan as follows: March 4, 1903, $25; January 30, 1913, $25; February 18, 1920, $10; and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial