158 Ind. 47 | Ind. | 1902
This case is here for the third time. Turpie v. Lowe, 114 Ind. 37; Lowe v. Turpie, 147 Ind. 652, 37 L. R. A. 233. After the last reversal the plaintiffs below filed an amended complaint in four paragraphs. James H. Turpie, one of the plaintiffs, having died, his administrator was substituted. An answer in fourteen paragraphs was filed by the defendant Lowe, together with a cross-complaint. Demurrers to the answers were overruled. The matters stated in the affirmative answers and in the cross-complaint were denied. Emma J. Turpie and Moses B. Earnhart, administrator of the estate of Mary F. Turpie, also filed their cross-complaint against Lowe, to which there was an answer in denial. Certain pleadings were filed by other parties, but they require no attention. At the request of the appellee the court made a special finding of the facts, and stated its conclusions of law thereon. Exceptions to the conclusions of law were taken by all the plaintiffs. There were motions for a venire de novo, and for a new trial. Judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee. The plaintiffs below appeal. The errors assigned and discussed are the rulings on the demurrers, on the exceptions to the conclusions of law, and on the motions for a venire de novo, and for a new trial.
The action is for an accounting, and to recover divers sums of money alleged to be due from the appellee to the appellants. The first and second paragraphs of the complaint as amended, charge that divers lots and parcels of land, together with certain personal property, were, conveyed by the Turpies to Lowe, in trust, pursuant to an agreement, partly in writing and partly oral, for the purposes and upon the conditions that Lowe was to manage said property, and sell and dispose of the same; that out of the proceeds of such sales he was to pay the debts of the Turpies, and discharge the encumbrances upon the said property, including a claim
The fourth paragraph of the answer was confined to that part of the third and fourth paragraphs of the complaint which related to the conveyance of the “Stark farm”, in Delaware county, Ohio, to Lowe. It alleged, in substance, that Lowe never received such a deed for the land as the Turpies agreed to execute; that the Turpies enclosed a deed in a sealed envelope, and falsely represented to Lowe that it
The fifth paragraph of the answer set up the defense of an estoppel by the record. It stated that, by the decision of this court on a former appeal, the conveyances which in the present suit were alleged by the appellants to be deeds and to create a trust were decided to be mortgages only, and that Lowe never took possession of any of said lands under said conveyances, but that said deeds were, in fact, executed by the Turpies, and accepted by Lowe as mortgages. The decision of the court holding that the deeds executed by the Turpies to Lowe were intended to secure debts due to Lowe, and such future advances as
The ninth paragraph of answer properly sets out a claim for moneys paid by Lowe for the Turpies, and other debts due to Lowe, and no valid objection to it is pointed out. The tenth paragraph of the answer, which goes to the whole complaint except that part which seeks a recovery on account of a sale of the one-half of the “Stark farm” and the personal property, sets forth the agreement in wrih ing under which the deeds were made by the Turpies to Lowe, and shows that the deeds were executed by way of security, and were subject to a written covenant of defeasance, and that Lowe held them as mortgages. The answer was not objectionable on any of the grounds insisted upon by appellants. The eleventh paragraph of the answer, which applies to the personal property on the “Stark farm”, is, in substance, a plea of payment, and, though somewhat in
The exceptions to the conclusions of law were in gross, and were taken by the appellants jointly. The conclusions were as follows: (1) “As to Emma J. Turpie and Mary Turpie, on their cross-complaint, that the law is with Lowe, and that they, and neither of' them, take anything by their suit, and that as to them Lowe have judgment for his costs. (2) That as to the plaintiffs Turpie and Turpie and Turpie’s administrator, as to first and second paragraphs of
The exception taken to these conclusions was. in this form: “And the plaintiffs now except to the conclusions of law upon the facts as found.” Unless all of the conclusions were erroneous as to all of the plaintiffs, the exception in this form could avail none of them. We are not prepared to say that such error exists. The finding does not state a single fact which supports any paragraph of the complaint. Without regard to the former decision of this court upon the character of the conveyances executed by the Turpies to Lowe, the court finds that they were mortgages, and not deeds creating a trust. The other facts found authorize the conclusions stated by the court. We will not enter into a minute calculation of the precise amount due from the Turpies to Lowe. If a mistake in the computation was made, there should have been a motion to modify the judgment. The finding of facts, with the conclusions of law thereon, was sufficiently full and definite to sustain the judgment, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a venire de novo.
No attempt was made to bring up the evidence, and in its absence few of the reasons assigned for a new trial can be considered. We have examined all the causes available to the appellants, but none of them is sufficient to overthrow the finding. The cross-complaint of Lowe was not SO' indefinite as to require the court to arrest the judgment, and the motion in arrest was properly overruled.
In regard to the errors separately assigned by Emma J. and Mary Turpie, we are of the opinion that the court could
A very careful review of the whole record convinces us that the conclusions arrived at by the court were just and equitable, and that by its finding and judgment substantial justice has been meted out to the parties.
Judgment affirmed.