Court Opinion

ID: 9740900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:44:27.332422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:20.941380
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Kelley, J.
Appellant petitions for a rehearing upon the grounds that we contravened certain ruling precedents of the Supreme Court and that we erroneously decided a new question of law.
It is alleged that in holding that certain averments of appellant’s petition had the effect of a collateral attack upon the mortgage foreclosure decree and the deed issued by the Sheriff to the Bank pursuant thereto, we contravened the ruling precedents established by the Supreme Court in the cases of Comegys v. Emerick (1893), 134 Ind. 148, 154, 33 N. E. 899 and Nichols v. Spindler (1944), 222 Ind. 502, 509, 53 N. E. 2d 888. The facts in the Comegys case are not at all similar to the facts pleaded by appellant in this case. In fact that case goes far to support the holding in our opinion which the appellant here seeks to attack. In the cited case, the executrix obtained an order for the sale of the real estate, assigned to her son a fraudulently allowed claim against the estate, which he used to pur*28chase the real estate at the sale by her as executrix. In the instant case the administratrix at no time obtained an order for the sale of the real estate nor did she in any other way or manner obtain any control, right, or jurisdiction over the real estate, as administratrix. In the Comegys case the plaintiffs seeking relief were the heirs of the decedent. In the present case neither the heirs nor any claiming as cestui que trustants were joined as plaintiffs or petitioners. In the cited case, the court held, as we held in this case, that the judgment could not be collaterally attacked. In other particulars the court there enunciated rulings which support our decision in the case at bar.
The said Nichols case was an action for approval of the financial transactions of an agent or trustee and for partition. A cross-complaint was filed seeking to charge the agent or trustee with the rental value of a described building. It lends no support to appellant’s contention that we contravened a ruling precedent.
The appellant further says that in holding that the real estate was never trust property and was never in the control or possession of the administratrix, as such, we contravened the ruling precedents laid down in the cases of Martin v. Wyncoop (1859), 12 Ind. 266, 269, and Hunsucker v. Smith (1874), 49 Ind. 114.
The Martin case, like the Comegys case, involved facts and rulings wholly dissimilar to those in the instant proceeding. There the heirs of the decedent were the plaintiffs and the facts showed that one Morris held judgments against Pierce in the latter’s lifetime and that after Morris became the administrator of Pierce’s estate, he, the said Morris, bought the land at the sale enforcing the lien of his judgments, and thereafter conveyed the same to one Martin. The court held that when Morris accepted the trust as executor, “he *29was no longer at liberty to exert his rights as creditor in opposition to his duties as executor.” The case is not in point. In the present action, the administratrix held no judgment or other lien against the decedent’s real estate, she exerted no rights in opposition to her duty as administratrix, and she had no right or interest in the mortgage lien which was foreclosed. In the said Hunsucker case, the widow and heir of the decedent was the plaintiff. The administrator, holding a mortgage on the land of the decedent, foreclosed it and purchased the land at the sheriff’s sale. Again we point out that the administrator held a lien and interest in the real estate which rendered antagonistic his duty as administrator and his interest as a lien creditor. Such facts do not comport with the circumstances pleaded by appellant in her petition, wherein the administratrix is shown to have no right, lien, or claim in or to the real estate which would render the real estate trust property of the estate or constitute her a trustee thereof.
We call appellant’s attention to the fact that in each of the cases relied upon by her and heretofore commented upon, the plaintiff or moving party was an heir alleging rights and interest in the real estate obtained by the fiduciary. The appellant stands in no such position. Her right to maintain the action she instituted depends upon entirely different considerations than those of an heir or a cestui que trustant and, as shown in our opinion, her petition discloses no facts establishing any right in herself, as administratrix de bonis non, to maintain the action.
Appellant further contends that we have erroneously decided a new question of law and she proceeds to state the alleged new question. However, in her contention and statement, appellant does not restrict herself to the facts as she pleaded them in her petition, but sets *30forth a very general question without the averment of any applicable facts. We cannot agree with appellant’s contention.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Note. — Reported in 112 N. E. 2d 306.
Rehearing denied 112 N. E. 2d 885.