Teegarden v. Ristine

Decision Date06 November 1914
Docket NumberNo. 8890.,8890.
Citation57 Ind.App. 158,106 N.E. 641
PartiesTEEGARDEN et al. v. RISTINE.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fountain County; I. E. Schoonover, Judge.

Action by Edna M. Ristine against Alice Teegarden and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

V. E. Livengood, of Covington, for appellants. Fred S. Purnell, of Attica, for appellee.

FELT, C. J.

This is a suit to set aside a conveyance of real estate. The complaint is in one paragraph, and charges, in substance, that on December 27, 1911, appellee was the owner of 26 acres of real estate, describing it; that appellee was a widow, ignorant and unlearned in business affairs, and especially so in matters of a legal nature; that Noah M. Teegarden, one of the appellants herein named, is a practicing attorney at law and a real estate agent, and appellant Alice Teegarden was his wife; that after the death of appellee's husband she had employed Noah M. Teegarden to act as her attorney in the settlement of her husband's estate, and in other matters; that she had implicit confidence in his integrity, and relied upon him as her attorney and sole legal adviser; that said Noah M. was for a long time prior to June 27, 1911, engaged in the business of selling and trading real estate on commission; that prior to said date appellee placed her said land in his hands, as such agent, for sale, and he advertised it and undertook to sell it; that while he was acting as such agent he induced the plaintiff to execute a deed for said real estate to the appellant Alice M. Teegarden, his wife; that said appellant Noah M. represented to appellee that a certain mortgage on her property was about to be foreclosed, and that certain of her creditors were about to file suits and take judgments against her; that unless she made some immediate disposition of her property, or immediately raised sufficient funds with which to pay her indebtedness, all of her interest in and to said property would be lost; that she had no other property with which to pay her debts; that, by reason of the relation of attorney and client which existed between her and said Noah M., she believed his statements to be true, and that it was necessary to immediately dispose of her property; that she then asked said Noah M. what she should do, and he advised her to sell said real estate, which she agreed to do; that said Noah M. then informed her that he would purchase it and would assume the mortgage against the land in the sum of $600 and pay her the sum of $500 in cash; that he represented to her that her property was not worth more than $1,100, and that she would be making a good sale to sell it at that price; that she relied on his statements and advice, and, believing that said property was not actually worth more than $1,100, and trusting in him as her attorney, informed him that, if he thought best, she would close the transaction suggested by him; that said Noah M. requested appellee to remain in the office until he could get the $500, and he soon obtained the money, and after deducting the amount of a certain note therefrom, paid the remainder to appellee; that he then prepared a warranty deed, which he presented to her to sign, and she then discovered that appellant Alice Teegarden was named therein as grantee instead of appellant Noah M.; that the consideration therefor was paid and delivered by said Noah M.; that on the evening of said day she learned that the statements and representations of said Noah M. were false, and that she was not, in fact, in danger of losing her property; that on the next morning she called at his office and notified him that she would not be bound by such deed, and tendered back the purchase price, and demanded a return of her deed, and was informed by appellant Noah M. that he had caused the same to be recorded; that she caused a deed to be prepared reconveying said land to her, and requested appellants to execute the same, and they refused so to do; that she kept his tender of money good by paying the amount to the clerk of the court for the use of appellants; that she was induced to execute said deed by false and fraudulent statements of said appellant; that the same were false and fraudulent, and were made by said Noah M. Teegarden for the purpose of inducing appellee to dispose of her land at a sacrifice and for less than its true value; that the land so conveyed by her was reasonably worth $1,700.

A separate demurrer to the complaint by each of said appellants was overruled and an answer filed in general denial. One Harriett F. Hayes filed an intervening petition alleging that she was interested in the suit by reason of a mortgage held by her on the real estate, and asked that her interest be protected.

The cause was submitted to the court for trial without a jury, and on request the court made a special finding of facts. The conclusions of law were in favor of appellee and said Harriett F. Hayes. Appellants excepted to the conclusions of law and filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled. Judgment was duly rendered on the conclusions of law in favor of appellee.

[1] Appellants contend that the complaint is insufficient on the ground of fraud, but have failed to set out the demurrers, or the substance thereof in their briefs. However, the same questions which are sought to be presented on the demurrers arise on the exceptions to the conclusions of law. The only questions properly presented and not waived relate to the correctness of the conclusions of law, and more particularly to the conclusions that said deed is void and should be set aside; that plaintiff's title be quieted; and that she recover costs. The court found the facts to be substantially as alleged in the complaint, and for that reason it will not be necessary to set them out in detail.

[2][3] The finding shows that appellant Noah M. Teegarden was an attorney and real estate agent; that he was the attorney of appellee in the settlement of her husband's estate in which she acted as administratrix, and he also...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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