Scanlin v. Stewart

Indiana Court of Appeals

Scanlin v. Stewart

33 N.E. 216, 6 Ind. App. 151, 1893 Ind. App. LEXIS 116

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 31, 1893

DocketNo. 615

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.E. 216 (Scanlin v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scanlin v. Stewart, 33 N.E. 216, 6 Ind. App. 151, 1893 Ind. App. LEXIS 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Reinhard, C. J.

This was an action by appellee Stewart against the appellant and appellee Crum on a promissory note, for the balance of purchase money on real estate. The complaint is to recover judgment on the note and to foreclose a vendor’s lien. Appellee Crum filed a cross-complaint, alleging suretyship by him on the note, and [152]*152setting up a written contract of indemnity between bim and the appellant, alleging payment of the note by him and asking to be subrogated to the rights of appellee Stewart, and that a lien be declared in his favor on the house mentioned in the complaint, and the same to be sold to satisfy cross-complainant’s lien. The court made a special finding and decreed a lien in favor of the cross-complainant. Appellant, besides excepting to the court’s conclusions upon the special findings, moved for a modification of that portion of the decree declaring and enforcing a lien in favor of said cross-complainant.

Filed January 31, 1893.

We think the jurisdiction of this appeal is in the Supreme Court.

Ordered transferred.

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

Reinhard, C. J.

This was an action by appellee Stewart against the appellant and appellee Crum on a promissory note, for the balance of purchase money on real estate. The complaint is to recover judgment on the note and to foreclose a vendor’s lien. Appellee Crum filed a cross-complaint, alleging suretyship by him on the note, and [152]*152setting up a written contract of indemnity between bim and the appellant, alleging payment of the note by him and asking to be subrogated to the rights of appellee Stewart, and that a lien be declared in his favor on the house mentioned in the complaint, and the same to be sold to satisfy cross-complainant’s lien. The court made a special finding and decreed a lien in favor of the cross-complainant. Appellant, besides excepting to the court’s conclusions upon the special findings, moved for a modification of that portion of the decree declaring and enforcing a lien in favor of said cross-complainant.

Filed January 31, 1893.

We think the jurisdiction of this appeal is in the Supreme Court.

Ordered transferred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.E. 216, 6 Ind. App. 151, 1893 Ind. App. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scanlin-v-stewart-indctapp-1893.