Wiley v. Howard
Decision Date | 05 December 1860 |
Parties | Wiley v. Howard |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Ripley Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, with leave to the parties to amend their pleadings.
S. C Stevens, for appellant.
Jer. Sullivan, for appellee.
Complaint by Wiley, against Howard, upon a promissory note for one thousand dollars, dated May 10, 1853, and payable May 10, 1857, made by Howard to one William R. Wiley, and by the latter indorsed to the plaintiff.
The defendant filed an answer of eight paragraphs. A demurrer was sustained to the 5th, 7th, and 8th, and no question arises concerning them. A reply, in denial, was filed to the 2d and 3d. A demurrer was filed and overruled to the 1st, 4th, and 6th, and the plaintiff excepted. Replications, in avoidance, were then filed to the 1st, 4th, and 6th paragraphs of the answer; to which demurrers were sustained, and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff having filed replies in denial of the last mentioned paragraphs of the answer, withdrew them, and declining to make further reply thereto, judgment was rendered against him.
The errors assigned, are upon the rulings of the Court upon the demurrers to the 4th and 6th paragraphs of the answer, and upon the demurrers to the replies to the 1st, 4th, and 6th paragraphs, and in rendering final judgment for the defendant.
The paragraphs of the answer on which the questions involved arise, are as follows:
1st. By this paragraph, he admits that he made said promissory note, but says that he gave the same in part consideration of the purchase of certain lands mentioned and described in a bond made by William R. Wiley, and his wife, which he makes a part of his said answer, and which reads as follows, to-wit:
William R. Wiley, Seal.
Lucinda X Wiley, her mark. Seal.
That he did on September 29, 1856, demand of said William R. Wiley, a deed for said land, of the kind and description in said title bond mentioned, and offered that he would, on his complying with such demand, pay the whole of the purchase money, but said Wiley wholly failed and refused to make said deed on such request made of him. That at the time he purchased said land from said William R. Wiley, and at the time he gave said notes, the said Wiley falsely and fraudulently represented to defendant, that he had a good title to said land, that he had a good right to sell the same, and that he could make a good title thereto; when, in truth and in fact, the said Wiley had no good title to a portion of the said lands, to-wit: the north-east quarter of section twenty-eight (28), in township No. 2, range one west, and no good right to sell the same, and could make no good and valid title thereto, nor had he, at the commencement of this suit, any good title thereto, nor has he yet, but the title to said quarter section of land is in one Micajah G. Moss, who refuses to convey the same. And defendant says, that confiding in said false and fraudulent representations of said Wiley, he purchased said lands, and gave the note in the complaint mentioned, in part consideration of said purchase and sale; and defendant says that he has paid to said William R. Wiley the sum of $ 4,400, part of said purchase money, which is more than the residue of said lands in said title bond is worth, and more than the said Howard was, by the contract with said Wiley, to pay therefor; wherefore he says, that the consideration for which said note was given has failed.
4th. By this paragraph it is averred, that defendant executed said note, but that it was given in part consideration of certain lands, sold by said William R. Wiley to this defendant on May 10, 1853; for the conveyance of which the said Wiley and wife, executed to defendant a title bond, dated on said May 10, 1853, as above set out. That at the time of said purchase and sale, said Wiley represented to the defendant that he had purchased a portion of said land, to-wit: the north-east quarter of section 28, in township No. 2, range one west from one Micajah G. Moss, and had a valid title bond from said Moss for the conveyance of the same; and falsely represented that he had fully paid said Moss for said quarter section of land, that he had an equitable right thereto, and that he would procure from said Moss, and make to the defendant, a good title to the same; and said defendant, confiding in said representations of said Wiley, purchased from him said lands, and executed said note, in complaint mentioned, in part consideration of the purchase money. And defendant says it was not true that said Wiley had made a valid purchase of said quarter section of land from said Moss, nor had he paid the purchase money therefor, and that the legal and equitable title to said quarter section of land is in said Moss, who refuses to convey, and will not convey the same to said Wiley; and said Wiley has not complied with his contract made with said Moss. And defendant further says, that said Moss claims the title and possession of said land, and has demanded possession of this defendant, and has commenced an action, in this Court, for the recovery of the possession thereof; that on October 10, 1856, he demanded from said William R. Wiley a deed for said land, but he wholly refused to make the same. And defendant says he has paid the said William R. Wiley the sum of $ 4,400, part...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sonnesyn v. Akin
...because no damage is suffered on acount of them, and the reason that they are immaterial may be because no damage has followed. Wiley v. Howard, 15 Ind. 169; Barber Kilbourn, 16 Wis. 485; Beard et al. v. Bliley, 34 P. 271; Armstrong v. Breen, 69 N.W. 1125; Davidson v. Moss, 5 How. 673; John......
-
Indiana & Michigan Elec. Co. v. Terre Haute Industries, Inc.
...Neal, Admr. v. Home Builders, Inc. (1953), 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 280. Even fraud, without damage, is not actionable. Wiley v. Howard (1860), 15 Ind. 169. A party must establish actual damages before he can recover punitive damages. Hahn, supra. Though THI charged conversion in Count IV o......
-
Mercer County State Bank of Manhaven, a Corp. v. Hayes
... ... Worthington v ... Curd, 22 Ark. 277; Garvin v. Cohen, 13 Rich. L ... 153; Helvenstein v. Higgason, 35 Ala. 259; Wiley ... v. Howard, 15 Ind. 169; McGehee v. Jones, 10 ... Ga. 127; Watson v. Kemp, 41 Ga. 586; Smith v ... Hudson, 45 Ga. 208; Booth v ... ...
-
Kritz v. Moon
...and surrendering, or offering to surrender, possession, see Brumfield v. Palmer, 7 Blackf. 227;Calhoun v. Davis, 2 Ind. 532;Wiley v. Howard, 15 Ind. 169;De Ford v. Urbain, 48 Ind. 219;Gwynne v. Ramsey, 92 Ind. 414;Refeld v. Woodfolk, 63 U. S. 318, 16 L. Ed. 370;Hurst v. Means, 2 Swan (32 Te......