Sills v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 20 December 1892
• Citation: 32 N.E. 875,133 Ind. 137
• Parties: SILLS et al. v. LAWSON et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

133 Ind. 137

32 N.E. 875

SILLS et al.

v.LAWSON et al.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 20, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, White county; A. W. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by Frank H. Lawson and others against Addison K. Sills and Lovenia E. Sills to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. Reversed.T. F. Palmer and Peelle & Taylor, for appellants. Sellers & Uhl, for appellees.

Miller, C. J.

This action was brought by the appellees against the appellants to quiet the title of the appellees to a tract of land. The complaint shows that on the 17th day of May, 1888, a decree of the White circuit court was entered in an action wherein the state of Indiana, on the relation of the prosecuting attorney, was plaintiff, and Clinton Keiser, James C. Evans, and Addison K. Sills were defendants, foreclosing the lien of the state for certain taxes against said lands; that on the 7th day of July, 1888, the land was sold by the sheriff, upon the decree, to the appellant Addison K. Sills; that on the 10th day of July, 1889, the sheriff executed a sheriff's deed to Sills, who has since conveyed a portion of the same to his wife, by a voluntary conveyance; that pending the suit, but prior to the rendition of the judgment, the plaintiff purchased the real estate in good faith and for full value from said James C. Evans, who was the owner in fee simple of the land, and received from him a deed of conveyance for the same; that there never was at any time any written notice of the suit filed with the clerk of the circuit court, nor any notice thereof recorded in any lis pendens record kept in the office of the clerk of said court; that the plaintiffs are and have been nonresidents of the state, were not parties to the suit, and had no notice or knowledge of it or the sheriff's sale until the year for redemption had nearly expired, at which time they were informed that the sale took place on the 17th day of July, 1889; that they relied upon this information, and intended to redeem within the year for redemption, but learned afterwards that the time for redemption had already expired; that the suit was brought at the first term of court held after they learned of the judgment and sheriff's sale. The plaintiffs ask that the sheriff's sale and deed made thereunder be vacated and set aside, and the title quieted. The prayer for relief is followed by the following offer: “And in order that said defendant may lose nothing on account of his said purchase of said land, the plaintiffs hereby consent, if the relief herein asked shall be granted that the amount paid by the defendant for said land as aforesaid, with interest at eight per cent. from the date of said purchase, shall be adjudged herein a first lien on said lands, and that the court may fix the time when the same shall be paid.” The defendants answered in three paragraphs, the first of which was subsequently withdrawn. The second paragraph was an answer by both defendants. It admits the recovery of the judgment, and sale of the land to the defendant Addison K. Sills, and that there was no written notice of the suit filed or recorded in the lis pendens record of the White circuit court. It also avers that on the 10th day of July, 1889, the same day upon which the defendant received the sheriff's deed for the land, he caused it to be duly recorded in the recorder's office of White county; that afterwards, and for a valuable consideration, he sold and caused a portion of the land to be conveyed to his codefendant. Defendants further say that plaintiffs received a deed of conveyance from said James C. Evans and his wife of said land, prior to the time of said judgment, but not until after the commencement of said suit and the service of process thereupon upon their grantors; and that, prior to the recording of their said deed, they were holding and owning said land secretly; and that said deed from James C. Evans and wife, from whom and by which they claim to have an interest in said land, although bearing date of February 6, 1888, was not recorded in the office of the recorder of White...