Robinson v. Reinhart
| Decision Date | 21 February 1894 |
| Docket Number | 16,572 |
| Citation | 36 N.E. 519,137 Ind. 674 |
| Parties | Robinson et al. v. Reinhart et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for Rehearing Overruled May 11, 1894.
From the Lake Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed.
J Stirlen and S. B. King, for appellants.
C. N Morton, for appellees.
This was an action to quiet title to real estate in Lake county, brought by appellees against appellants.
The first paragraph of the complaint contains only general allegations in the usual form.
In the second paragraph of the complaint, it is alleged further that the appellee, Helen C. Reinhart, who is the wife of her co-appellee, Andrew A. Reinhart, obtained her title to said real estate in March, 1883, by warranty deed from one George T. Cline; that appellees are now, and for more than fifteen years last past have been, residents of and have constantly lived and resided in the State of Maryland; that when they purchased said land of Cline, they made arrangements with him, inasmuch as they were nonresidents of the State of Indiana, whereby he agreed to look after and keep the taxes on said land paid up for them; that in October, 1861, one Salmon P. Gorden, who was then the owner of said land, sold and conveyed the same to one Young, both of whom are remote grantors of said Cline and of appellees, and said Gorden has never since had or owned any interest in said land. That on July 17, 1891, a man named Stirlen, who claimed to be a member of the firm of Stirlen & King, attorneys at law of the City of Chicago, came to appellees, in their place in the City of Baltimore, Maryland, and having introduced himself to them, said that he was there to see them as the attorney and agent of said Salmon P. Gorden, who was the rightful and lawful owner of said lands, to obtain from them a quitclaim deed for the same, and thereby save them the trouble and expense of the litigation which would otherwise follow in an action by said Gorden to quiet his title to the land; which action, he said, Gorden had already commenced in the Lake Circuit Court; that said Gorden had never conveyed the land to any one, and that the said deed from Gorden was a forgery; that Gorden had also bid off the land at tax sale, and had a tax deed for the same made since Cline had made the deed to appellees; that Cline had no title to the land whatever when he deeded the same to appellees, norat any other time; that Cline was liable on his covenants of warranty to the amount of whatever appellees had paid him for the land, with interest; that Gorden would rather pay appellees whatever it would cost to carry on the law suit to quiet his title to the lands; that if they would execute a quitclaim deed to Gorden for the land, he would pay them fifty dollars, and also bring suit for them against Cline on his covenants of warranty to recover the amount with interest which they had paid him, for twenty-five per cent. of what he should recover; that the land was of little value any way, and Gorden was anxious to get the matter fixed up as cheaply as possible. It is further alleged that Stirlen had the appearance of a gentleman and a man of truth and honor; in consequence of which, they, not having any means of knowing to the contrary, believed and relied upon his statements and representations to be true, and, so believing and relying upon them, they said to him that if his statements were true, if he would pay them one hundred dollars instead of fifty, and would prosecute the suit against Cline as aforesaid, they would execute a quit claim deed for said land to Gorden; that thereupon said Stirlen again asserted that all of his statements and representations were true, and accepted appellees' proposition and paid them the hundred dollars, and appellees thereupon signed and acknowledged what they supposed to be a quitclaim deed to Salmon P. Gorden for said land and delivered the same to said Stirlen; that appellees have since learned that said deed so executed by them now purports to be executed to Le Roy L. Reading, one of the appellants, instead of to Salmon P. Gorden, and that on July 20th, 1891, three days after the date of said deed, LeRoy L. Reading conveyed said land by deed to himself and the other appellants as co-partners of the firm of Robinson Bros. & Reading, of Chicago, Illinois, who now claim title to said land; that appellees have since learned, and now charge it to be true, that all of the statements and representations herein charged to have been made by said Stirlen to appellees in regard to said land and the title thereto and the value thereof, and as to whom he represented, were absolutely false and fraudulent, and known to be so by said Stirlen when so made, and were made by him with intent then and there to cheat and defraud appellees, and fraudulently obtain from them the title to said lands for a nominal sum; that said Stirlen was not, as stated by him to appellees, acting as the agent or attorney of Salmon P. Gorden in said transaction, but was in fact, and in truth, sent by appellants, and was acting as their agent and under their authority and instructions in all things, and without the knowledge or consent of the appellees or either of them, wrongfully, and against their will, caused the name of LeRoy L. Reading to be inserted in said deed instead of Salmon P. Gorden; that as soon as appellees discovered said facts, and that they had been cheated and defrauded out of their lands, and before the commencement of this suit, they tendered back to appellants all the said money so paid to them by said Stirlen, to wit: one hundred dollars, and demanded of them a conveyance back to appellees of the title conveyed by appellees to said Reading, all of which they refused to do, but, on the contrary, said that they were determined to fight it out to the bitter end, which tender they now bring into court and deposit with the clerk; that said lands were, on July 17th, 1891, and still are, worth five thousand dollars. Asking that appellants' claim of title to said lands be declared null and void, and that appellees' title to the same be quieted; that said deeds to LeRoy L. Reading, and from him to all of appellants be set aside and declared null and void, etc.
A plea in abatement, claiming another suit pending between the same parties, on account of the same matter, was filed by appellants, but afterwards withdrawn.
An answer in three paragraphs was then filed, the first being in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bullard v. Citizens' Nat. Bank
... ... 125; Chamberlain v ... Fuller, 59 Vt. 247; Whorton on Contracts (1 Ed.), par ... 245; Prescott v. Brown, 30 Okla. 428; Robinson ... v. Rhinehart, 137 Ind. 674; Wilcox v. Schisler, ... 55 Mont. 246; Quinly v. Clock, 60 N.Y. 253; ... Banaghan v. Maloney, 200 Mass. 46; ... ...
-
Tutwiler v. Snodgrass
...other representations of the speaker which were not actionable in themselves because of their promissory character. Robinson v. Reinhart (1894) 137 Ind. 674, 36 N.E. 519. We find that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that Tutwiler made representations regardi......
-
Wabash R. Co. v. Grate
...to predicate fraud. Bennett v. McIntire, 121 Ind. 231, 234, 23 N. E. 78, 6 L. R. A. 736, and authorities there cited; Robinson v. Reinhart, 137 Ind. 674, 682, 36 N. E. 519;Smith v. Parker, 148 Ind. 127, 132, 133, 45 N. E. 770;Fouty v. Fouty, 34 Ind. 433, 435, 436;Burt v. Bowles, 69 Ind. 1, ......
-
Baker v. Meenach
...by the witness Brockman in 1937 that no such veins could be found, was fraud. Bethell v. Bethell, supra; Mowes v. Robbins, supra; Robinson v. Reinhart, supra. a party professing to have knowledge falsely represents a thing to exist, and makes the representations for the purpose of securing ......