Pugh v. Pugh

• Decision Date: 28 May 1857
• Citation: 9 Ind. 126
• Parties: Pugh and Others v. Pugh and Others
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

9 Ind. 126

Pugh and Others v. Pugh and Others

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 28, 1857

ERROR to the Madison Circuit Court.

The decree is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.

Joseph S. Buckles and Walter March, for plaintiffs.

John Davis, for defendants.

OPINION

Davison J.

Bill in chancery, filed in August, 1845, by Jacob and Elizabeth Pugh who were the complainants, against the plaintiffs in error, who were the defendants. The case presented by the bill is as follows:

In the year 1833, the complainants, with their sister, Rebecca Pugh appointed and fully authorized Evan Pugh, Sen., their father, to proceed to Licking county, Ohio, and collect from one Aaron Baker certain moneys then in his hands, to which they were entitled under the will of their grandfather. Pursuant to his appointment, Evan Pugh collected for each of the complainants 35 dollars, and for Rebecca a similar amount. He paid over to Rebecca between 25 and 30 dollars, having retained out of the moneys collected for her, one-third of his traveling expenses; but to the complainants he never paid any part of the money which he received. It is alleged that, with the moneys collected for them, he, Evan Pugh, on the 23d of March, 1834, purchased in his own name, at the United States land office at Indianapolis, at Congress price, forty acres of land, situate in Madison county, which land is described; that said land, though entered in the name of Evan Pugh, Sen., was bought with the complainants' money, and for their benefit; and that, during his lifetime, he promised repeatedly to convey the forty acres to them; but he died without making such conveyance. Further, it is alleged that Evan Pugh, at his death, which occurred in the year 1845, left Sarah Pugh, his widow, and, in addition to the complainants, the following named children and heirs at law, viz., Rebecca, John, Hannah, Anne, William, Joseph, Evan, Maria, Robert, and Sarah Pugh. Said widow and heirs, with Daniel Williams, the husband of Rebecca, Nineveh Berry, the husband of Hannah, James Kendal, the husband of Anne, and William Allen, the husband of Maria, were the defendants. The bill prays that the trust may be executed, etc., and for general relief, etc.

Thomson and wife, in their answer, admit that Evan Pugh received the complainants' money, as alleged in the bill, and used it in the purchase of the land in contest, but aver that they are not informed as to whether it was or was not purchased for their benefit. The other defendants, except Robert and John Pugh, answered admitting the death of Evan Pugh; that they are his widow and heirs at law, and that he died seized of the land; but, of all the other statements and charges contained in the bill, they allege that they are uninformed, and require proof, etc. Robert Pugh, being a minor, appeared by guardian ad litem, who waived service of process; but no answer appears to have been filed on behalf of the minor. William Pugh filed his cross-bill, making the complainants and John Pugh defendants, wherein it is alleged that he, William, had bought John's interest in the land, and received his deed without any notice whatever of the complainants' title. To the cross-bill the complainants filed their answer, verified by oath. They admit William's purchase from John, but aver that, at the time he purchased, he had full notice of their claim upon the land. John Pugh, having failed to appear to the original bill, was defaulted. As to the cross-bill, no process appears to have been served.

Upon final hearing, the Court dismissed the cross-bill, and decreed that the land was held by Evan Pugh, in his lifetime, in trust, as charged in the bill, and since his death, has been so held by the defendants, who are ordered to convey it to the complainants.

This being a suit in equity decided in the Circuit Court under the old system of procedure, the evidence is properly in the record in the form of depositions. These sufficiently prove that Evan Pugh, as the complainants' agent, collected their money as charged, and with the same money bought the land in question in his own name. And his admissions, to the effect that he made the purchase for their benefit, are also shown.

Having carefully examined the evidence, we are of opinion that it sustains the bill. This conclusion plainly results when it is considered that the defendants' answers are not in denial of the alleged facts.

But the appellants insist that the bill itself is...