Shuler v. Hardin

25 Ind. 386
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1865
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 25 Ind. 386 (Shuler v. Hardin) 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
Shuler v. Hardin, 25 Ind. 386 (Ind. 1865).

Opinion

Gregory, J.

Hardin, administrator of South, sued Shuler in the court below on two promissory notes.

G. G. Nave, for appellant. P. S. Kennedy, for appellee.

The defendant answered that the consideration of the notes was a part of the purchase money of a lot in Matlock’s addition to the town of Danville; that South, on the 9th of April, 1861, executed his title-bond to Shuler, conditioned that, on the payment of the purchase money, the former would convey to the latter, by quit-claim deed, the lot in question; that, on the 24th of February, 1859, Arthur W. Little and others obtained a judgment against one John W. Matlock in the Hendricks Common Pleas, on which judgment was issued a writ of fieri fiadas, by virtue of which the lot was sold on the 25th of July, 1863, to one John L. Ketcham, “ and thereby all the right and title of South had been disposed of and divested, and the defendant’s equity in the property divested.” A demurrer was sustained to the answer, and this is assigned for error. The answer does not allege any fact to show that South in any way derived title through or from Matlock; the conclusion averred does not follow from the facts stated.

South contracted to quit-claim to Shuler the title he had in the lot; this did not bind him to discharge the liens resting on the property at the time he so contracted. The judgment against Matlock was rendered before South executed the title-bond to Shuler, and was in full force at the time, and if a lien on the lot, it was for Shuler and not South to look to its discharge.

The judgment is affirmed with costs, and five per cent, damages.

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

Related

Zimmerman v. Hill
100 So. 2d 432 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)
Ralph L. Shirmeyer, Inc. v. Indiana Revenue Board
99 N.E.2d 847 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1951)
Wright v. Anderson
253 N.W. 484 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1934)
Harvey v. Lowry
183 N.E. 309 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1932)
Grossman v. Lifshitz
261 Ill. App. 523 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1931)
Prudential Investment Co. v. Connor
112 S.E. 539 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1921)
Maulding v. Sims
213 Ill. App. 473 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1919)
Howard v. . Robbins
63 N.E. 530 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
Hancock v. Wiggins
63 N.E. 242 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Moore v. Olive
87 N.W. 720 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Parkey v. Veatch
68 Mo. App. 67 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1896)
Mullen v. Hawkins
40 N.E. 797 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Myjers v. O'Neal
130 Ind. 370 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1892)
Bunch v. Grave
12 N.E. 514 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Fleetwood v. Brown
9 N.E. 352 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Murray v. Fox
46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 108 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)
Donk Bros. v. St. Louis Glucose & Grape Sugar Co.
17 Ill. App. 369 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1885)
Gage v. Jenkinson
24 N.W. 815 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1885)
Gibson v. Richart
83 Ind. 313 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Fuller & Co. v. Hunt
48 Iowa 163 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Ind. 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuler-v-hardin-ind-1865.