Van Blaricum v. Kerkhoff
| Decision Date | 28 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | 12,103 |
| Citation | 147 N.E. 633,83 Ind.App. 411 |
| Parties | VAN BLARICUM ET AL. v. KERKHOFF |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied July 2, 1925.
From Marion Superior Court (A 23,433); Theophilus J. Moll, Judge.
Suit by Charles Herbert Kerkhoff against George M. Van Blaricum and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
P. J Lauck, for appellants.
Omer U Newman, for appellee.
From a decree quieting appellee's title to certain real estate, appellants appeal. The errors assigned relate to the overruling of appellants' motion for a new trial, and the correctness of the conclusions of law.
The facts as found by the court are, in substance, as follows: Charles Kerkhoff died intestate in 1894, leaving as his sole and only heirs, Mary Jane Kerkhoff, his widow, and appellee, Charles Kerkhoff, a son born to him by said Mary Jane Kerkhoff. At the time of his death, he owned a certain tract of land in the city of Indianapolis. In 1897, said widow married appellant, George Van Blaricum. Appellant Stanley Van Blaricum is a child born as a result of this marriage. In 1919, Mrs. Van Blaricum, her husband joining with her, and appellee and his wife executed a conveyance in the form of a warranty deed, whereby they conveyed said real estate to a trustee, for the express purpose, as stated in the deed, to effectuate a partition of said real estate between appellee and his mother, and to avoid the expense of an action in partition, and that there was no other purpose in making said deed. After the execution of said deed, but on the same day, said trustee, acting under the power contained in said deed, by an instrument in the form of a warranty deed, conveyed the east half of said real estate, that being the real estate in controversy in this action to Mrs. Van Blaricum, and by another like deed, conveyed the west half of said real estate to appellee.
Later, appellee and his mother, with their respective consorts, believing there was a mistake in the partition deeds theretofore made, executed another deed to another trustee, in form like the deed made to the first trustee, and the second trustee, also to effectuate such partition, made a deed to Mrs. Van Blaricum for the land in question, and another like deed to appellee for the balance of the land. At a still later date and during her said second marriage, Mrs. Van Blaricum died, leaving as her sole and only heirs, her said second husband, her son Stanley, and appellee, a son by the first marriage.
It is also found that there was no consideration for any of said deeds except the mutual deeds made for the purpose of partition and that none of said deeds was made for the purpose of alienating the real estate, but they were made for the sole purpose of setting off to each party his and her respective interest in severalty. Mrs. Van Blaricum, by her will which was duly probated, devised all of her property to her son Stanley, one of the appellants herein.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial