Munson v. Cole
| Decision Date | 11 December 1884 |
| Docket Number | 9682 |
| Citation | Munson v. Cole, 98 Ind. 502 (Ind. 1884) |
| Parties | Munson v. Cole et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Cass Superior Court.
S. T McConnell, for appellant.
M Winfield, Q. A. Myers, N. O. Ross and G. E. Ross, for appellees.
On the 4th day of December, 1864, Chauncey Carter died testate, the owner of the north half of lot No. 20, in John Tipton's administrator's second addition to the town of Logansport, several other parcels of real estate and considerable personal property, leaving surviving him his widow, Mary Carter, the appellant, his daughter, and four grandchildren, to whom he devised said property in the following proportions: One-fourth to the widow, one-fourth to the daughter, and the balance to his grandchildren, and by his will nominated the father of said grandchildren, Joseph Culbertson, executor of his will and trustee of his estate. Pending the settlement of his estate, and more than five years after said Culbertson had assumed the duties of said trusts, he purchased of the widow and daughter their interests in said estate, and to secure the payment of the purchase-money executed to them a mortgage for $ 10,500 upon all of said real estate and upon the east half of lot 56 in the old plat of said town. Afterwards said Culbertson subdivided said north half of lot 20 into twenty-two lots, numbered from one to twenty-two inclusively, and sold and conveyed said lots to the various appellees for value, under and by virtue of an alleged power conferred upon him by the will of said testator. Subsequently the widow and daughter foreclosed said mortgage, and sold all the property embraced therein, except the east half of said lot 56, under said decree, and only realized therefrom a portion of the debt secured by the mortgage. Thereupon they brought this action to foreclose said mortgage for the balance due thereon against the appellees, who were not made parties to the previous foreclosure proceedings. Thereafter, but before answer, the mother died devising her estate to the daughter, and this fact was brought into the record by supplemental complaint. Issues were then formed upon the complaint, upon a cross complaint by each appellee, and these were submitted to the court for trial, with the request that the court find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law thereon. This was done. A summary of the facts found, as taken from appellant's brief, is in these words:
The court, upon the facts found, stated the following conclusions of law:
1st. That Joseph Culbertson, as executor, had power to subdivide and plat the north half of said lot twenty.
2d. That said executor had power to sell and convey said property after the expiration of five years from the death of the testator.
3d. That the interest and title of the appellant and her mother in said real estate were subject to the right of the executor to sell the same in execution of his trust.
4th. That the conveyance by them to him, and the execution of the mortgage by him to...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Meier v. Union Trust Co. of Indianapolis
...3206, Burns' 1926; Ackerman v. Fichter (1913) 179 Ind. 392, 101 N. E. 493, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 221, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1117;Munson v. Cole (1884) 98 Ind. 502. The trial court found that the executor obtained the full cash value at the time of the sale of the two parcels of real estate, conseq......
-
Valentine v. Wysor
... ... shall be required." 2 R. S. 1876, p. 530 ... As was ... in effect said in Munson v. Cole, 98 Ind ... 502, the land was not directed to be sold by the will; that ... was left to the discretion of the executors. But if it had ... ...
-
Meier v. Union Trust Company of Indianapolis
...§ 3206 Burns 1926; Ackerman v. Fichter (1913), 179 Ind. 392, 101 N.E. 493, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 221, Ann. Cas. 1915D 1117; Munson v. Cole (1884), 98 Ind. 502. The trial court found that the obtained the full cash value at the time of the sale of the two parcels of real estate, consequently n......
-
Bailey v. Rinker
...real estate, he may do so without a petition or an order of court. Rev. St. 1894, §§ 2514, 2515 (Rev. St. 1881, §§ 2359, 2360); Munson v. Cole, 98 Ind. 502;Davis v. Hoover, 112 Ind. 423, 14 N. E. 468. Among other things, it is provided in our statute of wills, as to foreign wills, that: “Su......