[Download] "Singleton v. Cushman" by In Banc No. 17501 Appellate Court of Indiana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Singleton v. Cushman
- Author : In Banc No. 17501 Appellate Court of Indiana
- Release Date : January 21, 1947
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
CRUMPACKER, Chief Judge. On or about May 7, 1941, Charles H. Hepner and wife conveyed, by warranty deed, certain improved real estate in the city of Gary, Indiana, commonly known as No. 2609 Massachusetts Street, to the appellee and appellant and in said deed designated them as 'Lovell R. Cushman and Isabella Cushman, husband and wife.' On September 17, 1942, the appellee and appellant, designating themselves as 'Lovell R. Cushman and Isabella Cushman, husband and wife,' deeded said property to one William Drake, an unmarried man, who, the following day, reconveyed it to the appellee as the sole grantee. As consideration for the deed of September 17, 1942, the appellant was allegedly paid the sum of $50 and was to be permitted to occupy the premises rent free until September 17, 1943. In July, 1945, the appellant was still in possession thereof and upon demand refused to vacate and the appellee thereupon brought this suit for possession and damages for unlawfully holding over. The appellant answered to the effect (1) that she did not execute the deed of September 17, 1942; (2) that said deed was executed wholly without consideration; and (3) that her true name is and was Isabella Singleton. That on September 17, 1942, she was a married woman, being the wife of one Leo Singleton to whom she is still married and that he did not join in the execution of the deed of that date, and therefore said deed is null and void and she remains the owner of an undivided one-half of the property in controversy as a tenant in common with the appellee. These issues were tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the appellee that he is the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of the real estate described in his complaint and, over the appellant's motion for a new trial, judgment went accordingly. The motion for a new trial charges error in the giving and refusing of certain instructions and that the jury's verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. Although the evidence is conflicting as to the extent, if at all, the parties hereto lived together as man and wife, neither contended, upon the trial of the cause, that they are or ever were married by benefit of clergy or at common law. It follows therefore that the deed of May 7, 1941, or thereabouts, from the Hepners vested title in the appellant and appellee as tenants in common, each owning an undivided one-half of the real estate involved. There is ample evidence in the record to sustain the jury's finding that the deed of September 17, 1942, whereby said real estate was conveyed to William Drake was executed by the appellant and that she received a valuable consideration therefor.