Meikel v. Borders
| Decision Date | 17 November 1891 |
| Docket Number | 15,368 |
| Citation | 29 N.E. 29,129 Ind. 529 |
| Parties | Meikel et al. v. Borders |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Pulaski Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
E. P Ferris, W. W. Spencer and J. S. Ferris, for appellants.
N. L Agnew and B. Borders, for appellee.
The appellee instituted this action to quiet his title to a tract of land in Pulaski county. The cause was tried by the court, and, at the request of the parties, the court made a statement of the facts and its conclusions of law upon them.
The facts found by the court that must be decisive of this case are, substantially, as follows:
That, on December 15th, 1871, Augustus D. Wood, who was the owner of the land in controversy, conveyed the same, by a general warranty deed, to Caroline M. Meikel, but the deed was not recorded until June 9th, 1885.
Caroline M. Meikel paid nothing for the land, and had no personal interest in it, but held the same in trust for the use and benefit of Caroline L. Meikel, who died October 6th, 1879, leaving the appellants and Mary E. Meikel, who was the mother of the appellants, as her heirs at law; that on the 8th day of June, 1885, Caroline M. Meikel, with the knowledge and consent of Mary E. Meikel, conveyed the land by quitclaim deed to the appellants. This makes the chain of title upon which the appellants rely.
The appellee's chain of title is as follows:
Augustus D. Wood, under whom both parties claim title, died January 1st, 1879, leaving a widow, Elizabeth D. Wood, and two minor children as his only heirs at law. On April 14th, 1881, his widow sold and conveyed an undivided one-third interest in the land by a quitclaim deed to Moses A. Diltz.
A petition was filed by the guardian of the Wood heirs in the Putnam Circuit Court, where they then resided, for the sale of their interest in this land. It was made to appear to the court that the taxes on the land amounted to $ 40.30, and the ditch assessments to $ 382.58; that such proceedings were had that on the 26th day of April, 1881, the guardian reported that the land had been appraised at $ 240, and that the taxes delinquent amounted to $ 40.30, and the drainage assessments were $ 382.58, and that he had sold the interest of his wards in the land at private sale, without notice, to Moses Diltz for $ 56.66, cash, subject to the tax and ditch assessments. This report was approved by the court, and the guardian authorized to make a deed to the purchaser, which was done, and the same was approved by the court and delivered. Moses A. Diltz caused both of these deeds to be recorded on May 18th, 1881; the land remained unenclosed from 1870 to 1881.
It is found that the purchaser at the guardian's sale represented the amount of the encumbrances resting upon the land to be much greater than the true amount, and that he consequently obtained his title for less than the appraised value of their interest in the property; that on the 10th day of May, 1881, Moses A. Diltz sold and conveyed the land, by a general warranty deed, subject to ditch taxes and assessments, to the appellee for $ 450, of which sum $ 250 was paid in cash at the time of the conveyance, and the remainder in one and two years; that, when the appellee purchased the lands, he had no knowledge of the existence of the unrecorded deed, nor of the facts connected with the procurement of the guardian's deed, except so far as disclosed by the records, but was a bona fide purchaser, paying $ 450 for the land, which was its full value.
The conclusions of law deduced by the court from the foregoing facts, were:
We are of the opinion that the court did not err in any of its conclusions of law.
The record shows that the Putnam Circuit Court acquired jurisdiction of the proceedings to sell the land upon a petition by the proper guardian, and that each step was taken under its supervision, and the sale of the land and deed to Diltz were approved by the court. This judgment is conclusive when questioned collaterally. Walker v. Hill, 111 Ind. 223, 12 N.E. 387 (235); Dequindre v. Williams, 31 Ind. 444; Worthington v. Dunkin, 41 Ind. 515; Davidson v. Koehler, 76 Ind. 398; Pepper v. Zahnsinger, 94 Ind. 88.
Another reason why the appellants can not be the beneficiaries of the irregularities in the proceedings for the sale of the real estate by the guardian is the fact that they were not injured by them. The only defect pointed out in the proceedings is the failure to sell the land for its full value, or for the amount of its appraisement. This was a matter of concern for the Wood heirs, but not for the appellants. If the wards permit the sale to stand, the appellants will be compelled to content themselves therewith.
Counsel for the appellants suggest that the widow and children of Augustus D. Wood could convey no title to Diltz, because they had none to convey. This would entirely abrogate the provisions contained in the statute, sections 2926 and 2931 R. S. 1881, requiring conveyances to to be recorded within forty-five days from their execution, and providing that if they are not so recorded, they shall not be valid as against any subsequent purchaser, in good faith, and for a valuable consideration. No man owns land after he has conveyed it away. The widow and children of Wood had as much title to the land as he would have had if living. Neither could have any actual title, but they appeared to have one, and the grantee having...
To continue reading
Request your trial