The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-23
THE COURT RECORD.
supreme Court-April FL.
Hon. william A. Woods. Chief Justice.
LOAN BROKERS' COMMISSION.

1896. Merrick E. Vinton Elias j. Baldwin
Montgomery @. G.
Elliott, J.-Appellee employed appellant to
negotiate a loan for him, agreeing TO pay him a
commission Of per cent. the amount of
money obtained. Appellant procured the loan,
but appellee refused to accept the money, and
this suit was brought by appellant for his com
mission. Appellant was entitled TO his commits
sion when he found a lender ready, willing and
able 10 lend the money upon the terms proposed,
and the appellee conld not deprive him of his
commission by refusing to accept the loan. (33
J.. T., 5S4.l The principle is the same as that
which applies to real estate broker. who is Ell
Titled to his commission when he has found a
purchaser ON the terms proposed, and does not
depend upon the ultimate contamination of the
sale. (49 Ind, 275: SO i'd, 294; II
TO-, 500; SO N. Y, 1881 real estate
or loan broker may recover commissions,
although he acts for both parties, if it appear
that he acted openly and fairly, and that all the
facts were known to both principals. t57 Ind +,
466; 106 L. j., 4s7; 50 N. Y, 621.) Judgment
reversed
MISUNDERSTANDING OF PROPERTY,
1o.421. Edinburg, etc, Mortgage Company
va Arthur Latham. Sullivan @. G..
Woods, c. J.-Appellee held q mortgage on
100 acres OF land which was Junior TO certain
Judgment liens, and appellant in ignorance of
appeee's mortgage. though it was duly re-
corded. took a mortg gage on this.land and eighty
acres OF other land, to secure a loan which was
used in paying off the prior judgm liens. In
an action by appellee to foreclOse his mortgage
appellant asked to be subrOgated to the rights
OF the Judgment tenhoders, alleging the insol-
not entitled TO such relief, because there is 10
showing to the alue of the eighty acres upon
which It's mortgage was the sole REMEMBRANCE
While appelee's prior lien on the 40 acres was
for less than $500. CT Ind, 24l; 80 ID. 1o9)
Judgment affirmed.
CHANGE OF VEN UE-PAYMENT OF COSTS.
1o492: L., y. A. & c. Railway Company VS..
John G. Grubb. Washington G. C.
Best, C.-SectiOn Alb. Il. s., 1881, provides
that where a change of venue from the county
has been ordered, unless the costs are all paid
within the time limited the party shall not be
entitled to such change. A failure TO pay the
forfeits the right TO the change. And
where the party in whose favor the change was
granted requested the clerk to make out the
proper transcript and inform him of the amount
of the costs when he would pay .hcrn, but the
clerk failed to so inform MN until after the
time fixed for their payment had elapsed, when
the party then paid such costs, this was not n
payment within the time granted and the right
10 change Of venue was lost. Judgment af-
firmed.
MARRIED woMEN-sEPARATE EARNINGS.
10,209. James f. Boots, administrator, vs.
Ephralm Griffith, administrator Montgomery
G. c.
Howk, jim suit by widow against her
husbands estate for money loaned by her to her
husband in hls lifetime, the court instructed the
jury that any money saved by the wife belonged
TO her husband, unless there was an express
contract between them that the money should
be hers. This was the rule at common law, hut
IL was superseded by the act of March %, $40.
Revised Statutes 1881, sec. $500 The instruc
tion was both erroneous and not applicable to
the evidence. Judgment reversed
TAX TITLE-PERscNAL PROPERTY.
1910. John schrodt VS.. Thomas T. Deputy.
Gibson c. G.
Bickneli, C-Appellant claimed to be the owner
of land purchased at tax sale. Appellee an
swered, among other things that he had per.
sonal property IN the county OF the value of
$1,000, during the years when the
taxes accrued, upon which the taxes
could have been levied. but none was demanded
of him, etc. 1t ia settled that where the owner of
land has personal property IN tho county Of