Jones v. Hopkins

26 Ind. 450
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 26 Ind. 450 (Jones v. Hopkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. Hopkins, 26 Ind. 450 (Ind. 1866).

Opinion

Ray, J.

In the years 1848 and 1849, Samuel Kingon and wife mortgaged two tracts of land in Madison county to secure the payment of two loans from the school fund. In 1859 the auditor of said county, after giving notice as then required, sold and conveyed the lands to Jones for the payment of the loans. In 1849 the law required sixty days notice of such sales. In 1859 it required only twenty-one days notice. Hopkins, who claims title to the lands by deed from The Cleveland and St. Louis Railroad Company, which claimed title by deed from Kingon, brought this action to set aside the above sale to Jones as void, on the sole ground that sixty days notice of the sale should have been given? instead of twenty-one days. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled and judgment rendered on the demurrer^ from which Jones appeals.

In the opinion given in this ease upon a former appeal, 22 Ind., 310, the sale of the land was regarded as having ■occurred under the act of 1852, and it was held that section two of the general repealing act of 1852, 1 G. & H., p. 535, saving vested rights, required the sale in this case to be conducted under the law in force when the mortgage was given. The facts averred in the complaint show that the law of March 5,1855, must control, as the sale occurred under that statute. In our opinion the section of the repealing act referred to cannot be regarded as in any way controlling this decision. It could not limit the effect of an act passed [451]*451three years later. It has already been held by this court that expediting the remedy does not impair the obligation of the contract, nor affect any vested right. It would follow that the section alluded to could have no application to the ease uuder consideration. Webb v. Moore, 25 Ind. 4. The demurrer should have been sustained to the complaint.

W. March, for appellant. J. Davis, J. D. McDonald and A. L. Boache, for appellee.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, in accordance with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Indiana Trust Co. v. Beagley, Treasurer
15 N.E.2d 758 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1938)
Sansberry v. Hughes
92 N.E. 783 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Dowell v. Talbot Paving Co.
38 N.E. 389 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
McPheeters v. Wright
10 N.E. 634 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Flinn v. Parsons
60 Ind. 573 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Ind. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-hopkins-ind-1866.