Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 Ind. 458

Milner v. Hyland

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1881

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1881-11-15

<p>Statute of Limitations. — Pleading.—Demurrer.—Practice.—Under the code every aetion must be brought within the time limited by the statute, but, if the lapse of time is relied upon, ittnust, as a general rule, be pleaded to the aetion. If, however, it affirmatively appears from the complaint that the cause of action is barred, notwithstanding the exceptions in the statute, the objection may be taken by demurrer.</p> <p>Same. — 'Trust and Trustee. — Husband and Wife. — Where a wife furnishes money to her husband with which to purchase land for her, and he makes the purchase, but takes the title in his own name without the knowledge or consent of his wife, he becomes a trustee for her, and the statute of limitations does not commence to run against her until her husband disavows his trust.</p> <p>Same. — Action to Quiet Title. — In an aetion to quiet title by one in possession against another out of possession, an answer that the cause of aetion did not accrue within fifteen years is insufficient, as the answer is not applicable to the case made by the complaint.</p> <p>Practice. — Answer.—Demurrer.—There is no error in sustaining a demurrer to a paragraph of answer, where all the facts admissible under it are admissible under the general deuial which remains on file.</p> <p>Trust. — Secret Trust. — Bona fide Purchaser. — A. secret trust can not be enforced against the purchaser of the legal title for value and without any notice of the trust. This rule protects purchasers at sheriff’s sa les as well as at private sales. Tracy v. Kelley, 52 Ind. 535, explained.</p> <p>Same. — Counter-Claim.—Evidence.—In an action to enforce a trust on real estate, it is error to sustain a demurrer to a counter-claim by a defendant, averring title to such land under a bona fide purchase at sheriff’s sale, without notice, and such error is not rendered harmless by evidence tending to show constructive notice.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 1901

20 state decisions

150188118901900decided

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 →

¶1On Petition for a Behearing.

Best, C.

¶2A rehearing is asked on the ground that the evidence shows that the appellee was in possession at the time appellants purchased the premises in dispute, and it is insisted that such possession was constructive notice of appellee’s equity. This is a misapprehension of the record. It does not contain the evidence, and if it did an erroneous ruling upon the pleadings could not, in this way, be rendered harmless. Issue must be taken upon the counterclaim and appellants allowed an opportunity to prove the averment, that, at the time of their purchase, they did not ■have actual or constructive notice of appellee’s equity.

¶3Per Curiam. — Petition overruled.

/77/ind/458 · .json · Public domain