The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-22
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-Oct. 10.
PLEADINe-AppEA1-rARr OF Evidence.

NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF EVIDENCE
1881. Reuben shaeffer VS.. Elizabeth shaef
fer. st. Joseph c. c..
Best C.-Aeton by appellee for partition of
real estate. alleging that she the widow OF
David Shaeffer; that prior to their marriage they
entered into an ante-nuptlal contract, whereby
she became entitled to Onethird of said lana for
Ire, and that as widow she was entitled to an
additional third. The second paragraph averred
that she owned third in fee and additional
IhlIu Tor lire, and that appellants owned the re-
malnder. This paragraph did not aver how she
acquired a third Of the land in fee, aud
answer that the ante-puptiaI contract limited
her interest third for life, and that after the
death OF SAID decedent she accepted the proper
W 10 which she was entitled by such contract,
was not sufficient. For aught that is ayerred
she may have acquired third of the land by
purchase from the heirs, and it is not averred
that she had no other title to the land than that
acqull ed by virtue of said contract. The record
does not contain all the evidence, but 1t contains
all tnat was given upon the question sought to
be presented, and this is sufficient. 81 Ind,
5o9'l The question presented can be de-
termlned as well without the omitted
evidence as with it. The undsputed evidence
shows that the only title appellee had to the
land was that acquired by the ante-nuptual
contract, and such In addition, If any, as she
was entitled 20 az widow. In Shaffer VS.. Mat
theWs C77 Ind, S3) 1t was held That her rights
were limited to the provision made for her by
the contract, and that she was not entitled to
take an additional third under the law. The
court erred in giving her more than third of the
land. Judgment reversed
EQUITABLE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
lo,446 VIM. F. Combs VS.. Vim. Nelson. Posey
c. G.
Bicknell, C. C.-Appellaut's complaint averred
that in 1872 he bought land at commissioners
sale; that III 1873 he assigned the certificate of
purchase to Samuel Nelson, that in 1875 said
Nelson delivered the certificate to appellee to
secure an Indebtedness to him, with agree
ment that appellee should take the deed thereon
IN his own name as security, which was done
that Nelson died and his administrator sold the
land, and by mesne conveyances it came to ap-
pellanG.
Held: The complaint does not show a con-
tract for the sale of lands, but valid mortgage.
go Ind, 70) The answer admitted the excel
tlon OF the deed to the appellee but averred
that before the deed was recorded appellants
grantor bought tue land of Nelson's adj
mlnlstrator without notice of said
deed. This answer was bad. Appellant
and those under whom he claimed had no equity
as against the mortgage. The sale by Nelson's
administrator conveyed only the interest which
Nelson had and no more. az Ind, 1l6) The
law relating to the recording of deeds has no
reference to equities The holder of an equity
cannot claim the property against the holder
OF the legal title merely because such holder had
failed to record his deed within the time limited
by the statute. Appel lant's petition for removal
sufficient. because the undertaking omitted an
essential condition prescribed by the statute,
viz, that a copy of the record should he filed in
the United States Court on the first day of ITS
next session. Judgment affirmed.