Moore v. Ransdal

Citation59 N.E. 936, 156 Ind. 658
Case DateMarch 09, 1901
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

156 Ind. 658
59 N.E. 936

MOORE et al.
v.
RANSDAL et al.1

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 9, 1901.


Appeal from circuit court, Clinton county; James V. Kent, Judge.

Suit by Walter H. Ransdal and others against David A. Moore and others. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal. Reversed.


Ira M. Sharp, for appellants. M. E. Clodfelter, for appellees.

BAKER, J.

This is the second appeal of this case. Ransdel v. Moore, 153 Ind. 393, 53 N. E. 767. On the first appeal the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the complaint of the Ransdals were held to state facts sufficient, and the judgment on demurrer in favor of the Moores was reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer to those paragraphs. After this done, the Moores answered, and a trial was had, which resulted in a special finding of facts, conclusions of law, and judgment in favor of the Ransdals. The law of the case was determined on the former appeal. The question now is whether or not the case stated in the complaint was made out on the trial. The fourth paragraph counts upon an express trust in realty. See Ransdel v. Moore, 153 Ind. 395-407, 53 N. E. 767. The special finding follows this paragraph, except in certain important particulars. With respect to the creation of the alleged express trust by the settlor, Elizabeth A. Moore, and the consideration moving to the trustee, Willis E. Moore, the finding is this: After their marriage, Willis agreed that the brothers of Elizabeth should become,

[59 N.E. 937]

either by will or by deed, the owners of the land. Some time before her death Elizabeth recognized that she was fatally ill, and requested Willis to get a lawyer to prepare for her signature a deed or a will that would convey the title to her brothers. Willis promised, but failed to do so until a short time before her death, when he did procure a competent lawyer, who came and drew up for her, and she executed, a will disposing of her property; but she determined afterwards that the will was not satisfactory, and directed her husband to destroy it, which he did. They then had a private conversation, the nature of which the evidence does not disclose, but a few minutes afterwards she stated in the presence of Willis and others: “It is all settled. I have left it with Mr. Moore, and he has promised to do right with the boys, and I believe he will. I have left it all entirely with him. I want my brothers to have five or six hundred dollars each. I have left it entirely with him, and I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Davis v. State, No. 581S145
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 13 Abril 1983
    ...they occupied when the error occurred. Doughty v. State Dept. of Pub. Welf., (1954) 233 Ind. 475, 121 N.E.2d 645; Moore v. Ransdel, (1901) 156 Ind. 658, 60 N.E. 1068; Hunter v. Hunter, (1973) 156 Ind.App. 187, 295 N.E.2d 834. It was incumbent upon petitioner to renew his assertion on remand......
  • Thomas v. Briggs, No. 14593.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 15 Marzo 1934
    ...our holding herein, and the balance of said opinion is not applicable to the instant case. Appellants also cite Moore v. Ransdel (1901) 156 Ind. 658, 59 N. E. 936, 60 N. E. 1068, which was a second appeal of said case. The sole question before the Supreme Court in said second appeal was whe......
  • Morgan v. Hoadley
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 9 Marzo 1901
    ...of various bills of sale and chattel mortgages executed by John Morgan to Hoadley at different times prior to the execution of the [59 N.E. 936]chattel mortgage in suit. They were offered by Hoadley in making his defense to the evidence introduced by Mrs. Morgan in support of her cross comp......
3 cases
  • Davis v. State, No. 581S145
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 13 Abril 1983
    ...they occupied when the error occurred. Doughty v. State Dept. of Pub. Welf., (1954) 233 Ind. 475, 121 N.E.2d 645; Moore v. Ransdel, (1901) 156 Ind. 658, 60 N.E. 1068; Hunter v. Hunter, (1973) 156 Ind.App. 187, 295 N.E.2d 834. It was incumbent upon petitioner to renew his assertion on remand......
  • Thomas v. Briggs, No. 14593.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 15 Marzo 1934
    ...our holding herein, and the balance of said opinion is not applicable to the instant case. Appellants also cite Moore v. Ransdel (1901) 156 Ind. 658, 59 N. E. 936, 60 N. E. 1068, which was a second appeal of said case. The sole question before the Supreme Court in said second appeal was whe......
  • Morgan v. Hoadley
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 9 Marzo 1901
    ...of various bills of sale and chattel mortgages executed by John Morgan to Hoadley at different times prior to the execution of the [59 N.E. 936]chattel mortgage in suit. They were offered by Hoadley in making his defense to the evidence introduced by Mrs. Morgan in support of her cross comp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT