Case ID: ind-app_79/html/0209-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nichols, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smith v. Lamont et al.
    [No. 11,490.
    Filed January 5, 1923.]
    
      Evidence. — Parol.—Consideration for Deed. — In an action for breach of a general warranty of a deed, parol evidence is admissible to show the real consideration.
    From Huntington Circuit Court; George M. Eberhart, Judge.
    Action between William S. Smith and Jacob G. Lamont and others. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      C. K. Lucas, H. B. Spencer and H. W. Kacy, for appellant.
    
      Fred H. Bowers, Milo N. Feightner and Lee M. Bowers, for appellees.
   Nichols, C. J.

The substantial question which appellant attempts to present in this case is as to whether parol evidence is admissible to show the real consideration in an action for breach of a general warranty.

There was no demurrer to the answer presenting the question nor was there any objection to the evidence sustaining the answer. Had the question been properly presented, it must have been decided against appellant on the authority of Allen, Admr., v. Lee (1848), 1 Ind. 58, 48 Am. Dec. 352; Pitman v. Conner (1866), 27 Ind. 337; Fitzer v. Fitzer (1868), 29 Ind. 468; Lowry v. Downey (1898), 150 Ind. 364, 50 N. E. 79; and numerous other cases, including Evans v. Bolley (1923), ante 196, 137 N. E. 619.

Judgment affirmed.