Worley v. Hineman

• Decision Date: 06 January 1892
• Parties: WORLEY v. HINEMAN et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

29 N.E. 570

WORLEY

v.HINEMAN et al.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

Jan. 6, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, Owen county; G. W. GRUBBS, Judge.

Action by Melvin M. Hineman and another against Frank E. Worley, as administrator. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Myers & Corr, Fowler & Pickens, and Louden & Rogers, for appellant. W. R. Harrison, Buskirk & Duncan, and Beem & Hickam, for appellees.

Robinson, C. J.

The appellees filed a complaint in the nature of a claim against the estate of Hiram Worley, deceased. By the record it appears that on the 21st day of November, 1885, the appellees, by George M. Puett, their agent, filed in the office of the Monroe circuit court their claim against the appellant, which claim was on account of breach of warranty in a deed, and alleged that in the year 1868 the decedent, Worley, conveyed to the appellees, Hineman and Puett, certain real estate in Ford county, Ill., containing 200 acres, for the sum of $2,600, with covenants of warranty, a copy of which deed was filed with and made a part of the claim; that subsequently the appellees conveyed said real estate, with covenants of warranty, to James E. Wood, who subsequently, in like manner, conveyed the same to one Thompson and Joseph P. Evans; that at the time of the acceptance of said deed from said Worley there was a valid and subsisting mortgage thereon for $1,000; that, after the execution of said several conveyances, such proceedings were had in the proper court of Ford county, Ill., that said mortgage was foreclosed on the --- day of April, 1882; that said real estate was, by proper decree of said court, ordered said, and was sold, to pay and satisfy said mortgage; that the said Worley was notified of the pendency of said foreclosure proceedings; that the appellees had been compelled to pay the principal, interest, and costs due on said mortgage, to redeem said real estate from said sale, and discharge said real estate from the lien of said mortgage,-and filed said claim against said estate for the amount claimed to be due thereon by reason of said facts, as therein stated. The claim was not signed, nor was it accompanied by the affidavit or any person, an required by statute. The appellant demurred to the claim, which was overruled, and exception taken. The cause was taken upon change of venue to the Owen circuit court, and upon the issue joined was there tried by the court, resulting in a finding and judgment for the appellees. There was a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and exception taken.

The first question presented under the assignment of errors is the alleged error of the court in overruling the demurrer to the claim. It has been repeatedly held that the statement of claims contemplated by the statute does not require a regular complaint under the ordinary rules of pleading, but merely a succinct statement of the claim, which is sufficient when it apprises the defendant of the nature of the claim, of the amount demanded, and shows enough to bar another action for the same demand. Some of the decided cases place the statements of claims against decedents' estates upon the same ground with complaints filed before justices of the peace, where the holding is uniform that a complaint containing the elements above stated is sufficient. Taggart v. Tevanny, 1 Ind. App. 339, 27 N. E. Rep. 511; Hannum v. Curtis, 13 Ind. 206;Ginn v. Collins, 43 Ind. 271;Post v. Pedrick, 52 Ind. 490;Stricker v. Barnes, 122 Ind. 348, 23 N. E. Rep. 263. It has also been held that to withstand a demurrer for want of facts the statement of the claim must be succinct and definite, and contain all such facts as are necessary to show prima facie that the decedent's estate is lawfully indebted to the claimant. Culver v. Yundt, 112 Ind. 401, 14 N. E. Rep. 91; Huston v. Bank, 85 Ind. 21;Windell v. Hudson, 102 Ind. 521, 2 N. E. Rep. 303; Moore v. Stephens, 97 Ind. 271;Walker v. Heller, 104 Ind. 327, 3 N. E. Rep. 114. It has been further held that, if the claim has been secured by a lien upon all or any part of the...