Minnich v. Shaffer

• Decision Date: 13 October 1893
• Citation: 135 Ind. 634,34 N.E. 987
• Parties: MINNICH et al. v. SHAFFER et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

135 Ind. 634

34 N.E. 987

MINNICH et al.

v.SHAFFER et al.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 13, 1893.

Appeal from circuit court, Huntington county; T. L. Lucas, Special Jduge.

Action by Rudolph O. Shaffer and another against John Minnich and others to quiet title to land, and to enjoin a sale thereof under a judgment theretofore rendered against plaintiffs' grantor. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

J. M. Hatfield, for appellants. C. W. Watkins, for appellees.

HOWARD, J.

From the first paragraph of the amended complaint filed by appellees it appears that on the 19th day of February, 1890, Isabella Jackson, named as defendant in the caption of the complaint, but referred to as plaintiff in the body of the pleading, was the equitable owner of a certain lot in the city of Huntington, described in the complaint, but that the legal title to said land was in her husband, Jeremiah J. Jackson, also named as defendant in the caption, but treated as plaintiff in the body of the complaint; that on the same day the appellants obtained a judgment against the said Jeremiah J. Jackson for $208, and caused a transcript of the same to be filed at once in the office of the clerk of the Huntington circuit court; that afterwards the Jacksons conveyed said land by warranty deed to appellees, Shaffer and Shaffer. There is also an averment that Jeremiah J. Jackson had no interest in said real estate, but held the same in trust for his wife, Isabella. Prayer to quiet title in Shaffer and Shaffer, and that the sheriff, James M. Bratton, who is made defendant, be enjoined from selling the land on the judgment in favor of appellants. The second paragraph of the complaint is substantially the same as the first, with the additional averment that, at the time of the conveyance of the land by the Jacksons to the Shaffers, Jeremiah J. Jackson did not have $600 worth of property, and that he was entitled to an exemption for that amount. Appellants' motion to strike out this complaint for irregularities apparent on its face, and also their demurrer to the complaint, were overruled. Appellants answered: First, by a general denial. Second, that Jeremiah J. Jackson had himself purchased said land on the 29th day of May, 1888, paying $600 in cash, and assuming incumbrances to the amount of $825; that he took the deed in his own name, and on the same day had the deed duly recorded; that he took possession of the land, and continued to hold the legal title until the 24th day of February, 1890, when the real estate was conveyed to the appellees; that Isabella Jackson knew that the title was taken in her husband's name, and that she never made any claim to the lot; that credit was extended to Jeremiah J. Jackson by appellants, and their judgment debt incurred, by reason of his ownership of said land, and appellants had no notice or knowledge of the claim of Isabella until long after such credit was given; that appellees took said conveyance on the 24th day of February, 1890, well knowing that appellants had obtained their said judgment on the 19th of February, 1890. In the third paragraph of the answer it is further alleged that in the conveyance by the Jacksons to the Shaffers, the appellees, it was part of the consideration that the Shaffers should pay appellants' judgment, and also alleged that the Shaffers retained for a time a sufficient amount of the purchase price to pay said judgment, of which amount they still retain $175. The fourth paragraph of the answer avers that said real estate was sold to the appellees as the property of Jeremiah J. Jackson, he warranting the title thereto, and both he and his wife representing that he was the owner. It is also averred that at the date of the sale, and for a long time afterwards, Jeremiah J. Jackson was the owner of personal property in the city of Huntington of the value of $1,500, and that he did not at any time ask to have said real estate exempt from sale on execution. The fifth paragraph merely states that the Shaffers have since sold the land in controversy, and have no longer any interest in it. The appellees replied in general denial. There was a finding by the court in favor of the appellees, Shaffer and...