Shattuck v. Cox
| Decision Date | 16 May 1891 |
| Docket Number | 14,016 |
| Citation | 27 N.E. 609,128 Ind. 293 |
| Parties | Shattuck v. Cox |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Clay Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
N. G Buff, for appellant.
G. A Knight, J. G. Williams and J. T. Scott, for appellee.
Elliott J. Coffey, J., did not take any part in the decision of this case.
The facts stated in the appellee's complaint are, in substance, these: On the 19th day of April, 1872, the appellant was indebted to John Collier in the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, and to secure the payment of the debt executed a mortgage on land in Sullivan county. In October, 1873, Collier instituted a suit to foreclose the mortgage, and on the 21st day of January, 1874, obtained a judgment for $ 2,210.75, and a decree of foreclosure. On the 29th day of August, of that year, Collier bought the land at the sale made by the sheriff upon the decree, and received a certificate. He bid for the land $ 1,250. On the 25th day of April, 1875, he filed a transcript of the judgment in the clerk's office of Vigo county. Appellant desired to redeem the Sullivan county land, and he proposed to Cox, the appellee, that he should execute his promissory note for $ 2,000, and thus effect the redemption, and he also agreed to secure the money to pay the remainder due upon the Collier judgment. To indemnify the appellee against loss on the $ 2,000 note it was agreed that he should obtain from Collier an assignment of the sheriff's certificate. Five days prior to the expiration of the year for redemption, the appellee executed to Collier his note for $ 2,000, and the appellant paid to Collier the sum of five hundred dollars. Pursuant to the agreement of all the parties, Collier assigned the certificate to Cox, and also assigned the judgment. Appellee was compelled to pay, and did pay, the note to Collier. Of the sum paid by the appellee the appellant repaid to him $ 129, leaving the remainder entirely unpaid. The complaint asks that the lien of the judgment upon the Sullivan county land be enforced and that the plaintiff be awarded judgment for the sum in excess of the value of that land.
The complaint is unquestionably good. The appellee paid the money at the request of the appellant and to save his property, so that there is privity of contract. As the appellee was not a volunteer he was entitled to be subrogated to all the rights of Collier under the judgment and certificate. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial