Satterblom v. Wasson, No. 16773.

Docket NºNo. 16773.
Citation41 N.E.2d 674, 111 Ind.App. 377
Case DateMay 08, 1942
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

111 Ind.App. 377
41 N.E.2d 674

SATTERBLOM et al.
v.
WASSON et al.

No. 16773.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

May 8, 1942.


Appeal from Superior Court, Lake County; Bertram C. Jenkines, Judge.

Action by Stella Wasson, trustee, and another against Alma O. Satterblom and another, on two notes and to foreclose a mortgage, wherein defendants filed a crosscomplaint. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

[41 N.E.2d 675]

Cordell C. Pinkerton and Byron E. Bamber, both of Hammond, for appellants.

Oscar C. Strom and Willis C. McMahan, both of Gary, for appellees.


BLESSING, Judge.

This was an action by appellees upon two promissory notes and to foreclose a mortgage on real estate securing the same. The amended complaint alleged that appellants were indebted to Stella Wasson in the sum of $750, and to Magenta Kennedy in the sum of $750, and that they executed two promissory notes in such amounts evidencing such indebtedness, to Stella Wasson, Trustee, and executed a second mortgage on certain real estate securing the notes. It was further alleged that one of the notes was owned by Magenta Kennedy, and that neither Stella Wasson, Trustee, nor Stella Wasson, individually, had any interest therein. To the complaint defendants filed an answer of general denial and no consideration, and a cross-complaint seeking to quiet title to the mortgaged real estate.

In addition to the above pleadings, defendants filed a third paragraph of answer wherein they asserted that prior to the action they were the owners of the real estate in question, subject to a mortgage to Stella Wasson, Trustee; that said mortgage

[41 N.E.2d 676]

was foreclosed and Stella Wasson purchased the real estate at the foreclosure sale; that thereafter defendants applied to the Home Owners Loan Corporation for a loan to refinance the property, and on said date there was a mortgage of record on said real estate previously executed by defendants, but without consideration, to John Kennedy, and that the plaintiff, Magenta Kennedy, wife of John Kennedy, claimed to own an interest in the real estate by virtue of said mortgage; that, in order for plaintiffs to release their claims to the real estate so that said loan could be secured from the Home Owners Loan Corporation, an agreement was made whereby Stella Wasson executed a mortgage foreclosure consent to take bonds of the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the amount of $4000 and to release any and all claims she had against the real estate, and that Stella Wasson did execute such a consent, and did thereafter accept said bonds in full payment of her claims against said real estate; that defendants were required to execute the two notes in suit and the second mortgage securing them in order to satisfy the loss which plaintiffs would sustain in accepting the bonds; that the notes and mortgage were without consideration, were in violation of the said consent, and of the Home Owners' Loan Act, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1461 et seq., and rules of that corporation, and therefore fraudulent and void. (Our italics.) To this third paragraph of answer plaintiffs' demurrer for want of facts was sustained. Reply to defendants' second paragraph of answer and an answer in general denial to their cross-complaint closed the issues.

Defendants having requested the court to make special finding of facts and to state conclusions of law thereon, the court found the facts in substance as follows: That defendants executed a promissory note in the amount of $750 to Stella Wasson, Trustee, and executed a mortgage on the real estate described to secure the same; that on the same date defendants were indebted to plaintiff, Magenta Kennedy, in the sum of $750, and as payment of such indebtedness delivered to her a promissory note in that amount payable to Stella Wasson, Trustee, at which time defendants were the owners of the real estate described in the mortgage; that plaintiff, Magenta Kennedy, is the owner and holder of said note and mortgage securing the same and that no part of the principal or interest has been paid; that said note is past due and payable, and that there is now due her on said note the sum of $750 principal, $162.50 interest, and $125 attorney fees or a total of $1,037.50. The court further found that there was nothing due Stella Wasson on the note owned by her, and that since the commencement of the action said note had been surrendered and delivered to defendants, and had been cancelled and was no longer secured by the mortgage.

Upon the finding of facts the court stated conclusions of law as follows: (1) That the law is with the plaintiff, Magenta Kennedy, on the issues presented by her complaint and on the answers and crosscomplaint of the defendants; (2) that the plaintiff, Magenta Kennedy, should recover of and from the defendants the sum of $1,037.50, with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Oleska v. Kotur, No. 17070.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 30, 1943
    ...v. Sisson, 1940, 216 Ind. 587, 24 N.E.2d 912;McClellan v. Tobin, 1942, 219 Ind. 563, 39 N.E.2d 772;Satterbloom v. Wasson, 1942, Ind.App., 41 N.E. 2d 674. Having considered all questions upon which a reversal is sought and finding no error, judgment is...
  • Dean v. Insurance Co. of North America, No. 4-382A53
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 21, 1983
    ...absolute verity on appeal. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Pounds, supra; Koeneman v. Aldridge, supra; Satterblom v. Wasson, (1942) 111 Ind.App. 377, 41 N.E.2d 674. Accordingly, the Deans have preserved no error in this regard. Issue Four--Judgment Contrary to Law The Deans attack the ju......
  • Koeneman v. Aldridge, No. 18457
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 29, 1954
    ...rule of law that the record may not be contradicted by affidavits in the motion for new trial or otherwise. Satterblom v. Wasson, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 377, 41 N.E.2d 674. If the reply was not to be found among the files for purposes of putting in the transcript, the appellant's relief was wit......
  • Crowley v. First Merchants Nat. Bank of Lafayette, No. 16770.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 9, 1942
    ...until a final judgment has been rendered in the court as to all parties, the judgment is not final, and no appeal will lie therefrom. [41 N.E.2d 674] The record discloses that the above named Lloyd Williamson was made a party in the original foreclosure proceeding to answer as to any intere......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Oleska v. Kotur, No. 17070.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 30, 1943
    ...v. Sisson, 1940, 216 Ind. 587, 24 N.E.2d 912;McClellan v. Tobin, 1942, 219 Ind. 563, 39 N.E.2d 772;Satterbloom v. Wasson, 1942, Ind.App., 41 N.E. 2d 674. Having considered all questions upon which a reversal is sought and finding no error, judgment is...
  • Dean v. Insurance Co. of North America, No. 4-382A53
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 21, 1983
    ...absolute verity on appeal. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Pounds, supra; Koeneman v. Aldridge, supra; Satterblom v. Wasson, (1942) 111 Ind.App. 377, 41 N.E.2d 674. Accordingly, the Deans have preserved no error in this regard. Issue Four--Judgment Contrary to Law The Deans attack the ju......
  • Koeneman v. Aldridge, No. 18457
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 29, 1954
    ...rule of law that the record may not be contradicted by affidavits in the motion for new trial or otherwise. Satterblom v. Wasson, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 377, 41 N.E.2d 674. If the reply was not to be found among the files for purposes of putting in the transcript, the appellant's relief was wit......
  • Crowley v. First Merchants Nat. Bank of Lafayette, No. 16770.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 9, 1942
    ...until a final judgment has been rendered in the court as to all parties, the judgment is not final, and no appeal will lie therefrom. [41 N.E.2d 674] The record discloses that the above named Lloyd Williamson was made a party in the original foreclosure proceeding to answer as to any intere......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT