Wilson v. Todd
| Decision Date | 06 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | 27367. |
| Citation | 26 N.E.2d 1003,217 Ind. 183 |
| Parties | WILSON v. TODD et ux. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court; Robert R. Miller Judge.
Arthur Metzler and Charles C. Campbell, both of Rochester, and L. B. Ewbank, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Hillis & Hillis, of Logansport, for appellees.
The appellant's complaint alleged and the trial court found that during the year 1930 the appellee Roy W. Todd perpetrated an actionable fraud upon the appellant, Charles Wilson, by means of which more than $12,000 in money was extorted from said appellant. The money so obtained was deposited by said Roy W. Todd to his account in a bank. Thereafter, he used $774.38 thereof to pay and discharge a mortgage held by one Henry N. Wilson on a 33-acre tract of land. The further sum of $3,548.16 was withdrawn from said bank by said appellee and applied to the payment of a mortgage held by the Fletcher Joint Stock Land Bank on a 160-acre farm. Title to both pieces of real estate was held by the appellees, who are husband and wife, as tenants by the entireties, and they were both personally liable for the payment of the debts secured by said mortgages. On September 21, 1934, the appellant obtained a tort judgment against Roy W. Todd for the sum of $12,000, for the money that had been obtained by him as aforesaid. This judgment has never been satisfied. The appellee Ruth A. Todd had no knowledge of the fraudulent acts of her husband at the time said acts were committed, but did have knowledge thereof at the time of the commencement of this action. 24, 1935. The complaint was drawn upon 248 1935. The complaint was drawn upon the theory of subrogation. The prayer was that the satisfaction of the aforesaid mortgage liens be set aside and vacated; that there be an adjudication that said liens stand for appellant's use and benefit; and that said mortgages be foreclosed, said real estate sold, and the proceeds applied on the appellant's claim. On the facts found the trial court pronounced conclusions of law to the effect that the law was with the appellant on the issues joined as to his right of subrogation to the mortgage on the 33-acre tract of land, which was discharged by the payment of $774.38; that the law was with the appellee Ruth A. Todd as to the appellant's right of subrogation with respect to the mortgage on the 160-acre farm, which was discharged by the payment of $3,548.16; and that the appellant was entitled to recover from the appellee Roy W. Todd the sum of $12,000, less any amount recovered from the foreclosure of the mortgage on the 33-acre tract of land. The judgment followed the conclusions of law. The appellant duly excepted to the conclusions against him and also filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled.
It may be observed that the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to recover a judgment against the appellee Roy W Todd for $12,000 was entirely without the issues, and that the conclusions with respect to the appellant's right of subrogation to the two mortgage liens are in conflict and opposed to each other. However, since no cross-errors are assigned, we are not concerned with the conclusion upon which the appellant was found entitled to subrogation to the mortgage on the 33-acre farm. The appellees contend that the conclusion denying subrogation to the mortgage on the 160-acre farm was proper because the findings and the evidence failed to disclose certain essential facts, namely: (1) Knowledge on the part of Ruth A Todd of the fraud practiced by her husband or of the judgment rendered against him therefor; (2) that the mortgage debts were paid with money belonging to the appellant; (3) that in discharging the mortgage liens Roy W. Todd acted for Ruth A. Todd; and (4) that demand was made on Ruth A. Todd prior to the bringing of this action.
Subrogation is the substitution of another person in the place of a creditor, so that the person in whose favor it is exercised succeeds to the right of the creditor in relation to the debt. Johnson v. Barrett, 1888, 177 Ind. 551, 19 N.E. 199, 10 Am.St.Rep. 83. So, one whose property is applied by others to the satisfaction of a debt or incumbrance is subrogated to the rights of the creditor or incumbrancer; and subrogation may also be allowed where funds to which one is equitably entitled have been applied to the payment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial