Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Ind. L. Rep. 271

Wasson v. Crane

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1881

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1881-05-12

referred to Taylor v. LeviS. Stochwell (last term), and to former brief in Wasson v. Binford, on the questions involved. cited Edwards v. Keazy, 6 Cent. L. Journal, 391; Kelly v. Strange, 3 Bank. Reg. 2; Schobry v. Gibson, 17 Md. 572, to the effect that the act of 1875 is unconstitutional and void so far as it is intended to apply to prior existing contracts.

Relies on Taylor v. Stockwell · Roberts v. Shroyer

Decided 1881-05-12

¶1Opinion of the court by

Mr. Justice Elliott.

¶2Two questions are presented by this record:

¶3First. Is the sale of real property, under the adjudication and order of the United States District Court, in proceedings in bankruptcy, a judicial sale within the meaning of the act of March 11, *2721875, entitled “An act vesting the inchoate interest of married women in the lands of their husbands, when the title of the husbands therein has been divested by certain judicial sales, providing for the possession thereof, and the descent of such vested estate and matters connected with such sale”? Roberts v. Shoyer, 68 Ind. 64, furnishes a full answer to this question. It was there held that the adjudication of bankruptcy is the foundation of all subsequent proceedings—that the adjudication gives force and character to all such proceedings, and that sales made pursuant to such adjudication are judicial sales because founded on the judgment of the court.

¶4Second. Does the act of March 11, 1875, apply to contracts made prior to its passage ? This question is answered in the affirmative, by the case of Taylor v. Stockwell, 66 Ind. 505. The full and exhaustive discussion of the question by Worden, J., who delivered the opinion of the court, leaves nothing to be added by us in the present case. The character of the rights of creditors, as they existed prior to the adoption of the statute, the character of the act itself, and the distinction between statutes which impair a right, and those which enlarge or restrict a remedy, are clearly and forcibly defined.

¶5Judgment reversed, with instructions to overrule the demurrer to appellant’s complaint.

/1/indlrep/271 · .json · Public domain