Shedd v. Disney

• Decision Date: 13 November 1894
• Docket Number: 16,990
• Citation: 38 N.E. 594,139 Ind. 240
• Parties: Shedd v. Disney et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

38 N.E. 594

139 Ind. 240

Shedd v. Disney et al

No. 16,990

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 13, 1894

From the Porter Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

W. E Pinney, for appellant.

A. D Bartholomew, for appellees.

OPINION

Coffey, J.

This action was commenced in the Porter Circuit Court by the appellee Disney against the appellant, Shedd, and others, to quiet title to the land described in the complaint.

Shedd, in addition to filing an answer consisting of the general denial, filed a cross-complaint in which he sought, amongst other relief, to quiet title in himself to the same land. A trial of the cause by the court resulted in a special finding of the facts proven on the trial with the court's conclusions of law thereon, upon which a decree was entered in favor of the appellee Disney.

The assignment of error calls in question the correctness of the court's conclusions of law on the facts found.

The facts in the cause necessary to a decision of the questions discussed by counsel are as follows: Both the appellant, Shedd, and the appellee Disney, claim title to the land in dispute under John Peters and Edwin Hoxie, who acquired it as tenants in common by patents from the State of Indiana. On the 12th day of February, 1878, James G. Smith purchased the land at a tax sale made to satisfy delinquent taxes, and, on the 19th day of February, 1880, he received a tax deed from the auditor of Porter county. He subsequently transferred his interest to Frank H. Morrical, who instituted suit in the Porter Circuit Court to quiet the title, but the court found that the deed to Smith was insufficient to convey the title, and he thereupon took a decree to sell the land for the payment of the amount found due him. The land was sold on this decree and bid in by Morrical, but the description in both the decree and order of sale was erroneous.

On the 1st day of August, 1883, Morrical conveyed the land, by warranty deed, to J. S. McKinney and E. S. Bean, and, on the 25th day of December thereafter, McKinney conveyed the undivided half of it to Bean. On the 28th day of April, 1891, Emma S. Bean instituted suit, in the Porter Circuit Court, against Peters and Hoxie and others to quiet her title, in which she was successful, and the court entered a decree quieting her title to the land as against them and their heirs. The court also appointed a commissioner to execute a deed conveying to her the title of Peters and Hoxie, which was done. On the 25th day of September, 1891, Bean conveyed the land to the appellee Robert S. Disney by warranty deed, who platted the same as town lots, and has sold and conveyed a large number of such lots to purchasers.

On the 11th day of February, 1889, the appellant, Charles B. Shedd, purchased this land at tax sale for the sum of $ 6.81 1/2, and, on the 25th day of June, 1891, he received a tax deed from the auditor of Porter county. On the 15th day of May, 1890, he paid taxes on the land to the amount of $ 2.62.

Prior to the commencement of this action, Emma S. Bean tendered to the appellant $ 17 in redemption from his purchase at tax sale, which was a sum in excess of the amount due him if she was entitled to redeem. The tender was kept good by bringing the money into court for the use of the appellant. All of the parties to this controversy are now, and always have been, nonresidents of the State of Indiana.

The appellant did not file the agreement required by section 8603, R. S. 1894, but, without such agreement, the treasurer received his bid and struck off and sold the land to him.

It will be seen, from an examination of the above statement of facts, that the appellee Robert S. Disney makes a perfect chain of title from the State of Indiana to himself. Prior to the action by Mrs. Bean against Peters and Hoxie to quiet title, her title would seem to have been imperfect, unless the tax sale to Smith was valid, but by that action she obtained the evidence of the fact that she held the then title. Neither Peters nor Hoxie can assert any claim to this land as against Mrs. Bean while the decree in her favor against them remains in force.

The appellant claims that this decree is void as to him because he was not made a party to that suit, but we do not...