74 Ind. App. 655 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1921
On February 20, 1912,- appellee Grimes, who resided in the city of Bedford, Indiana, executed and delivered to appellant her promissory note for $250, and, to secure the payment thereof, executed and delivered to appellant a mortgage on certain real estate located in that city. On May 5, 1917, the note being past due and unpaid, appellant through his attorney, one John H. Underwood, by proper proceedings, procured a judgment for the full amount of the note, but did not foreclose the mortgage. Thereafter, on May 28, 1917, said appellee borrowed $2,500 from appellee Mechanics’ Building, Loan and Savings Association, and, to secure the notes evidencing such indebtedness, gave an additional mortgage on the real estate. At the time the additional mortgage was executed, it was agreed between appellee Grimes and said association that the latter, as agent of appellee Grimes, should pay to appellant the amount of his judgment, and procure from him a satisfaction of the judgment and of appellant’s mortgage. Thereupon a representative of appellee association communicated by letter with- appellant, who resided in the city of Indianapolis, as to the payment and release of the judgment. By letter in answer, appellant stated that the claim was “in the hands of J. H. Underwood, our attorney at Bedford, for collection.” Thereafter appellee association, as agent for appellee Grimes, delivered to Underwood a check' for the full amount of appellant’s judgment, the check being made payable to appellant. Underwood indorsed the check, “Hiram Brown, by J. H. Underwood, Atty., J. H. Underwood,” presented the same to the bank on which it was drawn, received the money thereon, and embezzled it. Though said attorney, at the time he received the check, stated that he would “get satisfaction of the indebtedness” from appellant, he failed to do so, and. on May 23, 1918, appellee Grimes demanded of
The only error assigned is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. It is urged that a new trial should have been granted for the reason that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law.
The material facts are not in dispute, and are in substance as above set out.
The only question involved in this appeal is whether or not the transaction by which the check payable to appellant was delivered to Underwood, and by him indorsed and cashed, amounted to a payment of the claim represented by the judgment. The recovery by appellees was upon the theory that such transaction did amount to payment. It is the contention of appellant that the acceptance of the check by Underwood was without authority, and that the receipt by him of the amount of the check, in money, was not a payment of the judgment. It is conceded by appellant that if Underwood had received the money instead of a check it would have been a payment of the claim, even if his attorney had embezzled the money so received.
The unfortunate situation of appellant is not the result of any wrongdoing or negligence on the part of appellees, or either of them, but is due to the fact that appellant’s attorney proved unfaithful to his trust.
We find no error. Judgment affirmed.