The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-07
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-March 6.
Hon. Geo. v. Howk. Chief Justice.
FRAUDULENT E-4oRTGAGE-RE
DEMPTION.

FRAUDULENT CONvEYANCE-MORTGA
DEMPTIoN
1899. Rosanna Hines VS.. VIM. Dresher. Hanlil-
Bickneu. G. Gin 1869 appellant obtained two
ly conveyed his land to VIM F. Noble to defraud APP
pellant In 1875 VIM. F. and his wife mortgaged
the land to the Htna Insurance Company for borrow
ed money. Afterward appellant obtained decree
that the conveyance to VIM. f. void to her and
the land subject to execution on her judgments. In
1873 the mortgage was foreclosed appellant being a
defendant to the suit and all the claim of the defend
Be fore tbe foreclosure shit WI9 r became banl
rupt and his assignee sold the land to Keck who
deemed from the foreclosure sale, and afterward sold
the land to appellee who, in this action, obtained
decree queting the title in him against appellant
Held; Keck by his foreclosure acquired an interest
in the land that entitled him to redeem He
was substantially paying the mortgage debt
pay It, and was entitled to be sgbrogated
to the rights of the nortgagee. as Ind, 92)
pellant 1873 Ind, 354.) In equity, therefore, the
judgments may still be enforced against the land but
they subject to the prior equity of the appellee,
who upon sale Of the land is entitled to be rst paid
out of the proceeds the amount of the redemption
money, with interest from the time it paid and
the remaining proceeds must be paid to appellant in
satisfaction of her judgments and the surplus be paid
to the appellee. Judgment reversed.
RELIEF FROM UDGMENT-ExCUsABIE NEGLECT.
1850. Frederick Kreite VS.. Henry Kreite. Dear
Best, C.-Proceeding by appellant to set aside a
Judgment taken against him, on the ground of ex
cuSaDle neglect The of the petition show
good defense and aver that he had employed an at
torney to defend the action who wrongfully agreed
and permitted the Judgment to be taken without APP
pellants knowledge. The mere employment of
an attorney did not relieve appellant from
further responsibility about his case. It was
still his duty to look after it and to furnish
the evidence by which his defense could be estab
rence 10 md, al: I'd, I51; So id. 5s35 If
between appellant and his attorney, the latter had
no authority to agree to tho judgment, appellants
remedy is against the attorney and not to be relieved
from the judgment. Judgment affirmed.
sHERIFF's sAIE-PossEssIoN OF JUDGMENT
DEBTOR
11186. Margaret Griffin VS.. Ada Rochester. Gin
Coerick C.-The facts found by the court shov
that Madeline Rochester foreclosed mortgage the
property in dispute purchased it at the sheris sale
obtained deed and sold the land to Appellee appel
liant was in possession and made parol contract with
appellee for the purchase Of the land which she failed
to perform and appellee sued for possession. The
special finding being silent as to whether or not APP
pelant was in possession a tenant, must be
garded as finding against appellant the burden on
5 ~ a pG 2e 70 seRg 9P9n ss he IF 78 sba
facts found show, appellant occupying the land
judgment debtor, demand for possession
essary before suit. Il Blkf., %; i'd 100; As Ind
28ll AS the contract was silent as to possession APP
peant not entitled under it to either take hold
possession az Ind, 500; So i'd, 1921 Judgment
affirmed.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. BRIEF.
1882 VIM. Raster ct al. Lewis Raster Bar
tholomew c. c.
Blcknel, u. G.-AppellantS Driet rs merely OF
the several specifications in the assignment of errors
without argument authorities. Errors assigned and
not argued considered as waived. (S7 Ind. 203)
brief must contain summary of the questions in
voved with citation of authorities if any relied
on and an argument based upon both. az Ind, 56l
For the want of such brief the judgment may be at
frmed. (4a Ind, 476; AS i'd, 1858; 90 i'd, 266J
Judgment affirmed.
CHURCH Observation-Disclosures
$3.50 John s. Petty VS.. The Trustees, etc. Della
Elliott J-where in substitution for building a
church the time of payment is liked the right to de-
mand payment does not depend upon the completion
pleton of the building The consideration of the
tract in such is the promise the part of
the corporation to build place of worship but it is
the mutual promises OF the several subscribers each
with the other g Ind, SO; 16 i'd $40; SO i'd, 375
53 i'd, 1863 In such a case an averment that
church edifce was erected is mere surplussage and
does not make the complaint bad. An answer that
the church built was smaller than that specified in the
change was made without the knowledge OF consent
of the subscriber. Judgment affirmed.
CoNTRAcT-vALUE OF CONSIDERATION.
1Os16 Henry Shade vs.. VIM. Crevistop. Hunt
ington c. G.
Elliott, Jon petition for rehearihg. Where party
gets all the consideration he asks he cannot
be heard to complain. g Ind. 3d. IL i'd, ASH; IA
tal that the thing parted with be of value to him who
gets it. 1t is enough if it be of value to him who
parts with it, add Cont, see. 8; 81 Ind, 440.l Pc
tition overruled.
The following also decided, abstracts of
which will appear tomorrow:
Mitchell vs. Fisher. Monroe C. G. Affirmed. Best
G.
Wright VS.. Mack. Elkhart c. c. Reversed Howk
G. j.
Breedlove VS.. Bandy. Marion S. G. Affirmed.
Franklin, G.
Cireethouse vs. Kline. Spencer G. c. Affirmed
Franklin, G.
Hines VS.. Driver. Hamilton @. c. Reversed Ham
mond, j.
MED. Franklin, G.
Pomeroy VS. the State. Rehearing denied.
First National Bank of New Castle VS.. Augen. Re
hearing granted.
Hanna vs.. Fisher Montgomery C. C. Rehearing
granted.
MED,
Stephenson vs.. Chambers Owens G. c. Dismissed
Superior Court.
T.. - IL ~.