Thompson v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 11 June 1892 |
| Docket Number | 15,822 |
| Citation | 31 N.E. 529,132 Ind. 288 |
| Parties | Thompson v. Thompson |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for a Rehearing Overruled Oct. 5, 1892.
From the Porter Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed.
A. J Gould and A. L. Jones, for appellant.
G. W Beeman, T. J. Thompson and H. R. Robbins, for appellee.
This is an action by the appellant originally commenced in the Starke Circuit Court against the appellee, Thomas J. Thompson, and one Charles J. Thompson. The complaint is in two paragraphs. The first is to quiet title, and the second is to set aside a deed to said Charles J. Thompson for said real estate, executed by the appellant under duress and coercion of her husband. The real estate is situate in Starke county. The said Charles J. Thompson, after the conveyance to him, conveyed the real estate to the appellee. The title to some of the real estate was held by the appellant in her own right and some of it held by her as a tenant in common with her husband.
Issues were joined, and there was a trial had. On proper request the court found the facts and stated its conclusions of law.
The appellant excepted to the conclusions of law, and the error assigned is that the court erred in its conclusions of law.
The facts found by the court are substantially as follows:
That on the 3d day of October, 1883, and for ten years prior thereto, the appellant and appellee were husband and wife; that on said day appellant owned the real estate as heretofore stated, part in her own right and part as a tenant in common with her husband.
That on said 3d day of October, 1883, the plaintiff and defendant executed a quitclaim deed conveying all of said lands to one Charles J. Thompson, a son of appellee, by a former marriage; which deed was recorded in the office of the recorder of Starke county, on the 19th day of July, 1886. That said deed was so executed by appellant under coercion and duress of her husband, the appellee, and without any consideration whatever, and was intended by the appellee to raise a trust in favor of himself. That on the 19th day of November, 1886, the said Charles J. Thompson conveyed all of said lands to the appellee, Thomas J. Thompson, by a deed which was recorded in the office of the recorder of said Starke county since the last term of the Porter Circuit Court, except the piece in section 28, which was on said 19th day of November, 1886, conveyed by said Charles J. Thompson, at the request of appellee, to one J. R. Thompson, by deed dated on that day.
That at the time of the execution of said deed by appellant and appellee to the said Charles J. Thompson, the appellant knew it was a deed and acknowledged it as such, but was ignorant of the contents thereof, and was unable to read the same; that appellee at the time told appellant that the grantee named in said deed was a person residing in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with whom appellee was trading for property at Fort Wayne, and that appellant did not know that the said Charles J. Thompson was the grantee therein, nor the contents of said deed, until the afternoon of the day on which the action for divorce, hereinafter mentioned, was tried, and after the trial thereof.
That at the date of the marriage of appellant and appellee, the appellant was the owner of a farm and other real estate in Starke county, the management and control of which the appellee at once assumed, and appellee continued to control and manage the lands of the appellant as well as that owned by her at the time of their marriage, as that subsequently acquired by her up to the time of the commencement of the divorce suit hereinafter mentioned. That after the execution of said deed to the said Charles J. Thompson the appellant continued to live and cohabit with the appellee without fear or constraint until about the time of the commencement of her divorce suit, and during said time had by him two children, but never made any complaint or inquiry as to the said deed until after the trial of the divorce case, and did not commence any suit in that behalf until the commencement of this suit on the 8th day of August, 1887.
That at the time of such divorce the appellant was the owner of divers other pieces of real estate in said Starke county, and since such divorce has sold and conveyed several pieces thereof, of the value of several hundred dollars.
That on the 12th day of October, 1886, the appellant commenced an action against the appellee in the Starke Circuit Court for divorce. That on the 13th day of October, 1886, the appellee appeared to said action.
The complaint charged cruel treatment, and asked the custody of their seven children born to them during their marriage. The appellee answered by denial and further answering alleged that he had given to the appellant certain real estate and personal property which was to be in full of all interest and claim she has in all property then or thereafter owned by each, either or both, and in full of alimony.
The cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial