Tucker v. Eastridge
| Decision Date | 17 December 1912 |
| Docket Number | 7,747 |
| Parties | TUCKER ET AL. v. EASTRIDGE |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Harrison Circuit Court; William Ridley, Judge.
Action by Anna Eastridge, by her next friend, James A. Eastridge against James H. Tucker and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
W. T Zenor and John H. Luckett, for appellants.
Samuel A. Lambdin, and C. L. & H. E. Jewett, for appellee.
This action was brought by appellee, by her next friend, against appellants on two of a series of promissory notes, amounting in the aggregate to $ 950, executed to appellee, Anna Eastridge, by appellant, James H. Tucker, as principal, and the other appellants as sureties. Appellants answered the complaint in three paragraphs. In the first paragraph appellants admit the execution of the notes sued on, but claim that the same were executed without any legal or valid consideration; that prior to the execution of said notes plaintiff, Anna Eastridge, had instituted a proceeding in bastardy in the usual form against defendant, James H Tucker, before a justice of the peace of Crawford county, Indiana, and that said proceeding was pending at the time the notes in suit and others were executed to said plaintiff; that she and her father, James A. Eastridge, threatened that if said Tucker did not compromise and settle said proceeding they would institute a criminal prosecution against him, and cause him to be arrested immediately, prosecuted and sent to the penitentiary for rape and incest; that James A. Eastridge, acting for and on behalf of plaintiff, demanded the sum of $ 1,000, $ 50 to be paid in cash and the remainder in notes of said Tucker, with security, in full settlement and compromise of said proceedings; that said James A. Eastridge and his daughter did execute a written contract to said defendant, agreeing to dismiss said proceedings and to forego said criminal prosecution, and to use their influence to prevent the filing of any criminal prosecution then or thereafter; that defendant, James H. Tucker, in consideration of said agreement, accepted said compromise and settlement, and thereupon paid $ 50 in cash to plaintiff and her said father, and executed five promissory notes to plaintiff, at the instance and request of her father, the first of which was for $ 150, and the remaining four for $ 200 each; that the notes in suit are the second and third of said series; that James A. Eastridge and his daughter, the relatrix in said bastardy proceeding, dismissed the same, and entered on the record of the justice of the peace a dismissal, on the terms of said compromise, and executed to defendant, James H. Tucker, their written agreement embracing the terms and consideration of their promise of settlement; that the compromise and settlement of the threatened criminal prosecution constituted the principal consideration for the cash payment and for the notes executed to said plaintiff, and that such consideration is so intermingled with the part paid and secured in the settlement of the bastardy proceedings that it is incapable of separation and apportionment, and that the whole consideration of the notes in suit is so tainted with illegality, fraud and immorality as to render them void.
The contract is set out as a part of this paragraph of answer, and recites that the case of State of Indiana, ex rel., Anna Eastridge, v. James H. Tucker is compromised and settled, and is to be dismissed on the terms hereinbefore set out, the dismissal to be at the defendant's costs, and the sum of $ 1,000 to be in full and complete satisfaction for the maintenance and support of relatrix's unborn child, and to be in full satisfaction of all claims and differences between said parties; that James A. Eastridge and Anna Eastridge agree never to bring, nor to aid in bringing, nor allow to be brought, any further criminal or civil proceedings against said James H. Tucker; that in case of the violation of any of the conditions of this agreement, it and the notes are to become null and void.
In the second paragraph of answer it is averred that the notes sued on were executed without any valid or valuable consideration whatever.
The third paragraph is essentially the same as the first, with the additional averment that plaintiff, Anna Eastridge, by and with the consent and procurement of her father and next friend herein, after the execution of the contract, filed her affidavits before the clerk of the Crawford Circuit Court, and procured the arrest of defendant, James H. Tucker, on the charges of incest and criminal seduction, and that by the terms of the contract the consideration of said notes has wholly failed.
Plaintiff replied in four paragraphs. In the second paragraph of reply to said defendants' answer, plaintiff averred that the notes sued on were executed by the defendants on a good and sufficient consideration. After reciting the facts leading up to the compromise and settlement, it is averred in this paragraph that the notes were executed for the purpose of obtaining the dismissal of the proceedings in bastardy, and making provision for the support and maintenance of plaintiff's unborn child; that on the execution of said notes and the payment of the sum of $ 50, plaintiff, as relatrix, in open court acknowledged that full and complete provision had been made for the suitable support and maintenance of her illegitimate child; that such provision appearing to the justice ample and satisfactory, the proceeding was dismissed, which was the only consideration for said notes.
The third paragraph of plaintiff's reply to the second paragraph of defendant, James H. Tucker's, answer, avers that on June 29, 1907, the date of the settlement, plaintiff was a minor child of the age of fifteen years. After reciting many details leading up to the settlement, it is averred that plaintiff was willing to settle, and for that purpose and that alone acknowledged before the justice of the peace that provision for the support and maintenance of her child had been made to her satisfaction, and signed such admission on the docket of said justice; that on the same day she signed another paper, prepared by the attorney for defendant, James H. Tucker, which she believes is the same paper set...
To continue reading
Request your trial