Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Ind. 166

Leslie v. Slusher

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1860

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1860-12-05

<p>If real estate be conveyed by an erroneous description, the purchaser is, after the vendor’s death, bound to accept the conveyance of his heirs, or of a commissioner, in correction of such mis-description.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1881

1 state decisions

Relies on Pennington v. Clifton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-12-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Guriam.

¶1Suit to correct a mistake in a deed, and to compel payment of purchase-money. Judgment below, for the plaintiffs. The suit is by infant heirs, who proceed by their next friend, and by adults. The father of these heirs, sold a tract of land to Leslie, and put him in possession, which he has since continuously held. In making the deed, the land was mis-described.

¶2The appellant lays down the proposition, that Leslie was entitled to a new deed from Slushier himself, the original grantor, and that he could not be compelled to receive one from his heirs, or a commissioner. The case of Rush v. Truby, 11 Ind. 162, seems to answer this objection. If Leslie was entitled to a new deed, as was executed in this case, he was compellable to take that of a commissioner. Some of the adult heirs had attempted to resell their interest in the land, but, as Leslie was in possession as owner, claiming adversely, the alleged conveyance of the heirs was void. This fact answers another objection. Ind. Dig. 798.

B. A. Chandler, for appellant.

¶3It is, also, objected that the judgment for costs is wrong, but no motion to tax the costs below was made.

¶4The decree below is affirmed, with costs.

/15/ind/166 · .json · Public domain