58 Ind. 322 | Ind. | 1877
Appellants filed the following complaint in the Henry Circuit Court:
“Albert Wood and Robert L. Polk, plaintiffs, complain of Joseph Winings and Hiram R. Minor,' defendants, and say, that heretofore, to wit, on the 25th day of Sep
“ ‘ For value received we hereby assign this judgment to Joseph Winings, without recourse, this July 21st, 1875.
“£R. & F. G. Newcome,
“£ by A. B. Knode, Agent.
“ ‘Attest R. B. Carr, Clerk.’
“ That afterward said Joseph Winings directed the sheriff of said county to levy said execution upon the undivided one-half of said real estate, as the property of said Micajah C. Fortner, and the said defendant'Minor, then and now the sheriff of said county, did, on the 9th day of September, 1875, levy said execution upon the undivided one-half of said real estate, and has advertised that he will sell the same as the property of said Fortner, at the court-house door, in Newcastle, at public auction, on Saturday the 2d day of October, 1875; and the plaintiffs aver, that he is about to offer said real estate as aforesaid for sale; that, on the — day of —:—, 1868, and long before tbe date of the said judgment of the said New-cOmes, Leon Marks and others recovered judgment in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, against said Micajah C. Fortner and said Samuel Winings, as partners, in the sum of six hundred and eighty-three dollars and costs of suit; that a part of said judg
“ The plaintiffs therefore pray, that said defendants be perpetually enjoined from selling said real estate under or by virtue of said execution or judgment, and that the title of said Wood be forever quieted and set at rest as against said judgment or any claim thereunder, and pray all necessary relief. Albert Woo».
“ Robert L. Polk.
“ State of Indiana, Henry County, ss :
“Albert Wood, being duly sworn, upon his oath says, that the allegations in the foregoing complaint are true, as he verily believes. Albert Wood.
“ Subscribed and sworn to before me, Sept. 29th, 1875.
“ R. B. Carr, Clerk.”
A demurrer to the complaint, for want of facts constituting a cause of action, was sustained, exceptions taken, and, in the absence of an application for leave to
The sustaining of the ^demurrer to the complaint is assigned for error.
The complaint shows, that, on the 5th day of September, 1874, 'the plaintiff Albert Wood, purchased at a judicial sale, the real estate in question, for four hundred dollars. There was no representation, fraud or warranty in the sale.
The real estate, at the time, was encumbered by two judgments. But they were of record, and, but for the apparent gross carelessness and fault of said appellant, would have been known to him before the sale. As it is, he appears to have purchased the property for four hundred dollars, subject to them, and he -may have to pay the four hundred dollars, and, in addition, must take care of said encumbrances, or let his property be sold to satisfy them. Cartright v. Briggs, 41 Ind. 184.
The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint. Baker v. Roberts, 14 Ind. 552; Brown v. Budd, 2 Ind. 442; Weakley v. Conradt, 56 Ind. 430.
Public policy forbids that the courts, should be occupied in readjusting contracts of parties, and relieving them from the consequences of their own gross carelessness, in cases like this. It would encourage folly, and render an indefinite increase in the number of courts necessary.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.