Richards v. Richards
Decision Date | 06 February 1861 |
Citation | 17 Ind. 636 |
Parties | Richards and Others v. Richards |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Grant Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded.
Isaac Van Devanter and J. F. McDowell, for the appellants.
J Brownlee, for the appellee.
Sarah Richards brought her action to obtain partition of certain lands, of which she averred her late husband died seized, and which, by will, he attempted to dispose of to his minor children, the present appellants, who are made defendants. Said minors were defaulted, and a guardian ad litem appointed to defend for all of them, except one who was not served with process, but whose testamentary guardian was served.
The guardian ad litem answered, admitting the marriage seizure, execution of the will and death of the testator but denying that plaintiff was entitled to any part of said lands, because of an ante-nuptial contract and of the execution of said will; which contract is as follows, substantially:
&c., signed, sealed and acknowledged.
By the will, the land in controversy was devised to the minor defendants, being children by the testator's second wife, Mary; to be divided among them when they arrive at age; and by it certain legacies, in money, were to be paid to his children by his first wife. His executor was to rent the land, keep it in repair and pay taxes. If any money was left after paying debts and legacies, &c. it was to be loaned; and, afterward, divided share and share alike among his second set of children. The will then states that, "Provided, also, and if I should die before I obtain a divorce from Sarah Richards, alias Sarah Allen, and she obtains a support from my estate, then, in that case it will be likely to consume the rents and profits, then in that case, the farm to be rented until the aforesaid legacies are paid without having to sell any of the lands."
It is shown that the testator died about three years after the marriage, and averred in the answer that at his death and for a long time before, said Sarah had been living in the State of Illinois, having without any just cause abandoned said decedent, and failed on her part to comply, &c.
There was a demurrer filed and sustained to the answer; and the record proceeds to state that "defendant having failed to withdraw said demurrer or further answer, it is therefore considered," &c., setting forth the finding and judgment of the Court.
It is manifest that the judgment should be reversed, for the reason that the record thus discloses the fact that it was rendered without proof,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fuehring v. Union Trust Co. of Indianapolis
... ... 224] less ordered, by the Court. So ... much in regard to the order of the Court in entering judgment ... for want of an answer.' Richards v. Richards, ... 1862, 17 Ind. 636, 638 ... There ... is nothing in § 2-209, Burns 1946 Repl., which indicates that ... the ... ...
-
Seay v. Hawkins
...the rights of the minor will be made before entry of judgment. 28 C. J. p. 1269, § 459; Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) § 1347; Richards v. Richards, 17 Ind. 636; Funk v. Funk, 130 Ky. 354, 113 S. W. 419; Aiken v. Gatlin, 48 La. Ann. 877, 19 So. 929. While a consent or default judgment again......
-
Burrell v. Jean
...or stipulations surrender any of his substantial rights. Crain v. Parker, 1 Ind. 374;McEndree v. McEndree, 12 Ind. 97;Richards v. Richards, 17 Ind. 636, 638;Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Lasca, 79 Kan. 311, 99 P. 616, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 338, 17 Ann. Cas. 605;Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 65......
-
Burrell v. Jean
... ... his substantial rights. Crain v. Parker, ... Admr. (1849), 1 Ind. 374; McEndree v ... McEndree (1859), 12 Ind. 97; Richards v ... Richards (1861), 17 Ind. 636, 638; Missouri ... Pacific R. Co. v. Lasca (1909), 79 Kan. 311, 99 ... P. 616, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 338, ... ...