Mishawaka, St. Joseph Loan & Trust Co. v. Neu

• Decision Date: 09 October 1934
• Docket Number: No. 14769.,14769.
• Citation: 192 N.E. 268
• Parties: MISHAWAKA, ST. JOSEPH LOAN & TRUST CO. et al. v. NEU et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

192 N.E. 268

MISHAWAKA, ST. JOSEPH LOAN & TRUST CO. et al.

v.NEU et al.

No. 14769.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

Oct. 9, 1934.

Appeal from Superior Court, Elkhart County; Wm. B. Hile, Special Judge.

On petition for rehearing.

Petition for rehearing denied.

For prior opinion, see 191 N. E. 187.

Walter R. Arnold, of South Bend, Ralph S. Feig, of Mishawaka, and Harman & Wider, of Elkhart, for appellants.

Raymer & Olds, of Elkhart, for appellees.

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Appellants claim in their petition for rehearing that this court erred in its opinion of June 29, 1934, in failing to pass upon the questions raised concerning the trial court's conclusion of law No. 7 in holding that the appellant Flora Huffman had no interest in the five-acre tract of land, and quieting title thereto as against her.

We think the opinion disposes of this question, but, in addition to the original opinion, we call attention to the fact that the appellant Flora Huffman has no inchoate dower right in the real estate in question. Her husband, Herbert R. Huffman, sold the real estate to appellees, and put them in possession thereof. At the time said appellant obtained legal title to the real estate from Strykers, the mortgages were executed to the trust and finance companies, and the appellant Flora Huffman executed the same. By her execution of these mortgages, she released and extinguished her inchoate interest in the real estate, and the appellees hold said real estate free from any claim of Mrs. Huffman based upon her inchoate interest therein. Railroadmen's Building & Savings Association v. Rifner (1928) 88 Ind. App. 580, 163 N. E. 236;Sharts v. Holloway (1898) 150 Ind. 403, 50 N. E. 386.

Appellants earnestly insist that a rehearing be granted, and, among other things, assert that this court had no power to treat the complaint in the case as amended so as to grant the relief by a vendor's lien to appellees in and to the real estate mentioned therein. We have carefully examined appellants' petition and brief and the authorities cited, and we see no reason to change the views expressed in the original opinion.

Petition for rehearing denied.