Roller v. Blair

• Decision Date: 06 June 1884
• Docket Number: 10,962
• Parties: Roller v. Blair et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

96 Ind. 203

Roller v. Blair et al

No. 10,962

Supreme Court of Indiana

June 6, 1884

From the Miami Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

E. T Reasoner and R. J. Loveland, for appellant.

J. L Farrar, J. Farrar and W. C. Farrar, for appellees.

OPINION

Elliott, C. J.

The complaint in this case alleges that the appellees, plaintiffs below, are husband and wife; that the wife, Elizabeth, was one of the children and heirs of Jacob Harter, deceased, who died in Miami county, Indiana, the owner of valuable real and personal property; that the value of his property, over and above all indebtedness, was $ 3,119.16, and to one-third of that sum Elizabeth was entitled; that long before the date of the death of her father she had resided in Wells county, Indiana; that on the 29th day of May, 1879, the appellant came to her house for the purpose of buying her interest in the estate of her father, and to induce her to sell it to him at a price far below its value, he falsely represented that the estate was insolvent, and that she would get nothing from it; that he held a mortgage for $ 1,800 against the land, and that it and other encumbrances would exhaust all the land. It is further alleged that the appellee, knowing nothing of the condition of her father's estate, trusted to the appellant, and relying upon his representation, sold him her interest therein. The falsity of the representations is shown by proper averments, and there are proper allegations of injury.

A husband may unite with his wife in an action concerning her separate property and estate. Where the complaint shows the existence of the marital relation, it is not necessary to make a further statement of the husband's interest in the subject-matter of the action.

The complaint avers, and the demurrer admits, that the property described in the complaint belonged to the wife, and as it was obtained from her by fraud the legal injury was to her, and she, therefore, has a cause of action. The person who sustains an injury from the fraud of another is the person entitled to sue.

Where fraudulent representations are alleged to have been made to the wife, and are shown to have deceived her, it is not necessary to go further and show that they also deceived the husband. A cause of action is shown when it is made to appear that the wife was deceived and defrauded, and the wrong-doer can not escape the consequences of his fraud by asserting...