The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-06
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings IN the Various Courts of
Record Yesterday.
Full Abstract of the OpiniGns Rendered
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.
Supreme Court-June 5.
Hon. William E. Niblack. Chief Justice,

supreme COurt-O une D.
Hon. William E. Niblack. Chief Justice.
ooNvEYANcE-FRAUD-REsULTING TSVsT.
9.571; Chester c. Buck We. Benz. F. Noreis.
Elliott, J.-Appellee's complaint charged that
he was induced 90 become surety on an appeal
bond OF Rebecoa Cressner, who represented her
self to be the owner of unincumbered real estate,
on which she made him an indemnify1ne mort
gage; chat 1t was 1Rcumbered by a Judgment In
favor of appellants for $1lS, upon which a sale
OF the land was made ana bought in by them
for the amount of their Judgment, although 1t
was worth 81, 800; that the sale was fraudulent
y made for the purpose of keeping the property
from SAID Rebecca's creditors; that she retained
possession of II, and was TO have a reconveyance
whenever she desired It. This complaint was
good. A conveyance, however made, is void II
the intent OF the parties ls to defraud creditors.
inc grantee OF property fra0dulentiy conveyed
holds II in trust for the creditors of the grantor,
but this is not a trust created by the contract OF
the parties and is not within the statute. Judg-
mont affirmed.
DEED-coSDTTToN OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES FOR
BREACH.
$3.50. Needham W. Copeland VS.. Sarah Cope
Hammond, J.-Copeland and his wife, Sarah,
conveyed certain lands to his son by a former
lands shOnld he incumbered for one half
the support of the grantors duriBg Their
lives, and for funeral expenses at their
death, and that upon Failure at any time by the
grantee to perform the condition the lands
should revert to said Copeland. Afterwsrd the
apptlee abandoned her husband. ana lie ODpdlu-
ed a decree of divorce from her, and this action
was brought by her against tho son for the cost
OF one-hsif OF her support since her separation
from her husband. The relief asked was a per
eohal Judgment, but when the defendant an
swers, the court MAY grant the plaintiff any re-
lief consistent with the case made 10y the COM
PLANT anu embraced within the issue. tR. s.,
SEQ. 3S5) The circumference or charge upon
the land for the support OF the gran5ors ana
each of them gave them severally a lien on the
land to secure their rights. Appellant accept
ed the Conveyance with this charge upon the
land. THE charge thereby became her separate
property and the subsequent divorce did not
affect her rights. While "a divorce depIives
the wife Of her inchoate interest in all
lands held By her husband, it does not work a
forfeiture Of the consideration due her for any
REIMBURSEMENT previously made Of such inter
est. The re-entry for conditions broken by John
Copeland, since the divorce. would not DEPRIVE
the appellee OF ner right. The charge for her
support was placed upon the land by him in
making the deed as the consideration for her
joining in 1t, and this charge must remain upon
the land without reference to the ownership.
But the court erred in rendering a personal
Judgment against appellant. Such support and
maintenance we're made an incumbrance upon
the land without any provision for their pay
ment outside of such tncumbrance. t52 Ind,
l36; 45 i'd, $50; 30 n. Y, 2o41 Judgment re
vefsed.
MASDATE-sPEc1FIc APPROPRIATION.
10.505. State ex rel. John Martin VS.. Albert
@. Porter OF nj, Marion 8. @.
Howk, J.-Thts was a proceeding for a man
date against the Auditor and Treasurer OF State.
by John Martin, TO compel the payment of a
warrant issued to him by the provisional
board Of the Insane Hospital for Women
for a balance due him for constructing said
building. 1t may be assumed that the warrant
evidences a valid. liquidated Indebtedness, but,
able only out Of a specific Appropriation made
for that purpose by the Legislature, and the con-
trolling question is whether the warrant is pay
able out OF the fund provided by the act of Feb.
%, 1888, whrch appropriated $4,000 for the
completion of the construction OF thedepRrtment
for women OF the Hospital for the Insane. The
| M w alma fn1R ananihN nm nriofiNna tor FAM
clearly expressed purposes, and the naymeat of
the REALTORS warrant does not come within any
OF them, They were manifestly made for future
purposes, and not for past transactions. The IN
tention of the Legislature is clearly shown in the
title, preamble aud body of the act, and the Ian
guase is too plain to require or .pernIt judicial
construction. 1t cannot be held that the relat-
or's claim was specifically provided for by said
act. Judgment affirmed.
CON yEYANCE TO HUsBAND AND wIFE-CoNsID-
GRAFTON.
1908. Matthew sedgwick va. VIM. H. Tucker
ct ux. Shelby &C.
Nib(ack. J.-ActIon by appellees for an injuuc-
ton to prevent the sale of land decided
to them Jointly under a judgment
swer. that William II. inherited, as an heir of
Ephtalm Iacker, an eighth interest in the lat
ter's land, and that the land in controversy
was assigned to him in a partition made by the
heirs of said Ephraim Tucker as his interest in
the estate; that long before said partition he was
Indebted to the estate of said Ephraim. upon
which the Judgment mentioned was rendered:
that he had no other property, eto. The renly
Of Aurella Tucker ayerred that her husband had
long prior to the mourning OF such Indebtedness
become indebted to her for borrowed money and
her inchoate interest in certain pieces OF real es-
tate which he had sold, and in the deeds OF which
she Joined upon his promise of repayment to her,
and that the land in dispute was conveyed to
them jointly an execution of such promise and
agreement. This consideration was sufficient TO
support the conveyance. The partition among
the heirs having been made by deed, the title to
the land did not rest In Mr.. n. individually before
it passed to him aud his wife jointly. The action
being in favor of appellees jointly, each had the
right to testify, without reference to the effect
which might result to the interests of the other.
t52 Ind. asa: II i'd, 302; 20 i'd, 1879 1t WAS not
error TO permit William IL, Tucker to testify that
he had no intention of defrauding his creditors
when he had his wife's name inserted in the par
tition deed. III Ind, 2S9; 76 i'd, 244) dudg-
ment affirmed.
e,1s2. George Nave va. John Flack. Tippe-
canoe c. G. Affirmed. Elliott, j.