Warbritton v. Demorett
| Decision Date | 20 May 1891 |
| Docket Number | 14,873 |
| Citation | 27 N.E. 730,129 Ind. 346 |
| Parties | Warbritton v. Demorett et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
L. J Coppage, for appellant.
M. E Clodfelter and G. D. Hurley, for appellees.
This was an action by the appellant against the appellees to recover the possession of the real estate described in the complaint.
In addition to the general denial, the appellees answered that one Watkins, being the owner of a certain described tract of land in Montgomery county, Indiana, sold the portion thereof described in the complaint to one Jessup, and placed him in the possession thereof; that in attempting to convey said land by deed to the said Jessup, a mistake occurred in the description, by reason of which said deed did not cover all the land purchased; that subsequent sales and conveyances were made from the said Jessup to persons named until the appellees became the owners of said land; that the persons through whom the appellees make their title each purchased the whole of the land described in the complaint, and each was put into the actual possession of the whole thereof, and made valuable and lasting improvements thereon, but that the mistake in the description runs through all the conveyances; that each of said conveyances was duly recorded; that subsequent to the sale and conveyance to the said Jessup, Watkins sold and conveyed the remainder of the land so owned by him to the appellant, who at the time of his purchase had full knowledge of the fact that Watkins had sold to Jessup, and attempted to convey, the land described in the complaint; that the grantees of the said Jessup were in the actual possession of the land in controversy at the time the appellant made his purchase from the said Watkins.
The appellees also filed a counter-claim, in which they set up substantially the same facts averred in the second paragraph of their answer, and prayed that their title to the land might be quieted.
The court overruled a demurrer to the second paragraph of the answer and also to the counter-claim.
A trial of the cause, by jury, resulted in a verdict for the appellees, upon which the court, over a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment.
The assignment of errors calls in question the correctness of the ruling of the circuit court in overruling the demurrer to the second paragraph of the answer, in overruling the demurrer to the counter-claim, and in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.
As the questions presented by overruling the demurrer to the second paragraph of the answer and in overruling the demurrer to the counter-claim are substantially the same, they may with propriety be considered together.
In our opinion the court did not err in overruling either of said demurrers. Each of the demurrers admits that Watkins sold the land in controversy to Jessup, and placed him in...
To continue reading
Request your trial