Stanley v. Peeples

• Decision Date: 02 December 1859
• Citation: 13 Ind. 202
• Parties: Stanley and Another v. Peeples and Others
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

13 Ind. 202

Stanley and Another v. Peeples and Others

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 2, 1859

From the Marshall Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.

C. H Reeves, for appellants.

OPINION

Davison J.

In February, 1853, Hugh Peeples and his children, Susannah William, Samuel, George, Daniel, and John, brought this action against the appellants, who were the defendants, to set aside the sale of a tract of land in Marshall county. The case made by the pleadings is as follows:

Patsey Peeples, the wife of Hugh Peeples, and mother of the above named children, owned the land in contest. In March, 1850 Hugh started for California, intending to be absent two years; but he returned in one year and ten months. Soon after he started, Patsey, his wife, died, leaving the said children her heirs at law; and about three months thereafter, viz., in June, 1850, Ira Stanley, one of the defendants below, and one of the appellants, instituted a suit in chancery in the Marshall Circuit Court against Hugh Peeples and his children, which resulted in a recovery against him for 596 dollars, and a decree that for the payment thereof, the land in question be sold, &c. Upon that decree an order of sale was issued, by virtue of which the land was offered for sale, and Stanley purchased it for 400 dollars, entered a credit upon the decree for the purchase-money, and received a deed pursuant to the sale, After this, Stanley sold and conveyed the same land to one William Curtis, who took possession, &c. The plaintiffs aver that the proceedings which resulted in the above decree were fraudulent and void; that Hugh Peeples had no notice of the suit in which it was rendered; that the children were infants and no guardian was appointed, &c.; and that Curtis, when he purchased, had full notice, &c. And, further, it is averred that he, Curtis, bought the land for 500 dollars, but had not at the the commencement of the suit, paid the purchase-money. The relief prayed is, that the decree in chancery, and the sale under it, be vacated, &c., and that the plaintiffs' title be quieted, &c.

The issues were submitted to the Court, and final judgment rendered for the defendants.

Within one year after the rendition of this judgment, the plaintiffs filed a complaint for a new trial, wherein, after reciting substantially the above proceedings, they allege that the defense set up to their action was founded alone on said decree in chancery referred to in their complaint; that that decree, since the rendition of said judgment, was, by the Supreme Court, at its May term, 1855, reversed and set aside, and, should a new trial be granted to them, they would be able to sustain their original complaint against said defendants, and that they, the defendants, could make no defense. The plaintiffs further say, that the judgment of the Circuit Court was and is erroneous in law: wherefore, they pray that it be set aside and a new trial granted, &c.

To this complaint for a new trial, the defendants demurred, and for cause of demurrer alleged that the same "does not contain and set forth sufficient facts to enable the plaintiffs to sustain said action"; but their demurrer was overruled.

Answers were then filed, which, on demurrer, were adjudged insufficient, and there was judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them a new trial, &c.

Thereupon the plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint, setting up the reversal of the decree in chancery by the Supreme Court, to which supplemental complaint there was a demurrer overruled when the...