Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

147 Ind. 148

Reed v. Kalesbeck

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1896

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1896-12-01

<p>Judicial Sales. — Drainage Assessment. — Foreclosure of Drainage Zden. — Action to Quiet Title From Sale. — Statutes Construed. — Jurisdiction. — The owner of real estate which has been sold under foreclosure of a drainage assessment lien, wherein the real owner was not made a party to such proceedings but an alleged owner as shown by the tax duplicate, cannot maintain an action cutting off the lien created by such -proceedings in favor of the purchaser at such sale and quieting his title to the real estate so sold under act of 1883 (Acts 1883, p. 173), which provides that a drainage petition shall be sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of the lands described therein if they are described as belonging to the person who appears to be the owner according to the last tax duplicate or record of transfer kept by the auditor of the county where the same is situated, pp. 152-154.</p> <p>Same. — Invalid Sale. — Right of Subrogation. — A purchaser at a sheriff’s sale, under a foreclosure of a drainage assessment which by reason of irregularities in the proceedings no t^tle passed to him, is entitled to be subrogated to the lien of the state to the extent of the amount paid at the sheriff’s sale. pp. 154, 155.</p> <p>Practice.— Action to Quiet Title to Real Estate. — Defense.—In an action to quiet title to real estate it does not devolve upon a defendant claiming title, to file a cross-complaint asking affirmative relief but he may, under the general denial, introduce any facts upon the trial which will tend to defeat the plaintiff in obtaining a decree quieting his title to the land in question, pp. 155, 156.</p> <p>Tender. — Quieting Title to Real Estate. — Where a party seeks to quiet his title to real estate against one holding and asserting a valid lien he cannot do so unless he pays or tenders the payment of the lien.</p> <p>Appeal and Error. — Petition for Rehearing. — It is the office of a petition for a rehearing to point out wherein the court erred in the result reached upon the original hearing, p. 157.</p>

Relies on Fertich v. Michener · Goodwin v. Goodwin · Harness v. State ex rel. Turley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-12-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 1991

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

5018961900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*157On Petition foe Reheaeing.

Pee curiam

¶2Appellees have filed a motion to reject wliat purports to be a petition for a rehearing filed by the appellant in this cause, for the reason that it fails to conform to rule XXXVII, of this court, in not setting forth the cause for which the judgment of affirmance is supposed to be erroneous. The petition in question is nothing more than an argument, in support of the original contention of appellant and does not state any particular cause or errors by reason of which the decision of the court, as hertofore announced, is supposed to be erroneous.

¶3It is the office of a petition for a rehearing to state or point out wherein the court erred in the result reached upon the original hearing.

¶4The requirement of rule XXXVII conforms to good practice and should be strictly enforced. See Goodwin v. Goodwin, Exr., 48 Ind. 584; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hamilton, 50 Ind. 181; Fortich v. Michener, 111 Ind. 472 and 486; Elliott’s App. Proced., sections 555 and 893. Parties and their counsel, in appeals to this court, are bound to keep in mind the rules which control the procedure therein, and are, required to yield obedience and conform thereto. Harness v. State, ex rel., 143 Ind. 420.

¶5For the reasons stated, the petition is insufficient to present any question for review and is, therefore, overruled.

/147/ind/148 · .json · Public domain