Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 Ind. 224

Huffman v. Copeland

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1882

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1882-11-15

<p>Practice. — Failure of Party to Submit to Fkcamination. — Striking out of Pleadings. — Witness.—No question is presented upon the refusal of the circuit court to strike out a party’s pleadings because of a failure to submit to ' examination, under section 510, B. 8. 1881, unless the record shows that a good excuse for the failure was not offered.</p> <p>Fraudulent Conveyance. — Husband and Wife. — Contract.—Consideration. —Partnership.—A husband and wife and a third person did business as partners, agreeing to share profits equally; money of the wife was used in the business; large profits were made, but the husband having overdrawn his share, his debt to the firm was, by agreement of all the partners, charged to his wife’s account, and in consideration of this adjustment he executed to her an agreement to convey to her, or to their daughter, certain real estate, and afterwards, being insolvent and indebted to plaintiff, conveyed to the daughter.</p> <p>Held, that the agreement to convey rested upon a valuable executed consideration, and the conveyance made was valid as against the creditors of the grantor. '</p> <p>Judgment. — Lien of. — Assignor and Assignee. — A judgment lien attaches to the precise interest which the debtor has in real estate, and no more, except that a good-faith purchaser and assignee of a judgment is protected (in this State) against secret equities inconsistent with the recorded title of the debtor.</p>

Relies on Busenbarke v. Ramey · Tuttle v. Churchman · Flanders v. O'Brien

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1929

4 state decisions

4018821890190019101920decided

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 Rehearing.

Woods, C. J.

¶2A rehearing is asked because it was not decided “ whether the deed was delivered to the appellee Margaret, Jr., prior to the rendition of appellant’s judgment,” nor “ the effect thereof in case it was not so delivered.”

¶3When the conclusion was reached that the contract for the conveyance rested upon a valuable consideration, and was therefore valid and binding, it became immaterial whether or not there was a delivery of the deed before the rendition of the judgment. The contract having been made and the consideration paid or executed, a conveyance under the contract *229could not be defeated by the lien of a judgment subsequently rendered. The general rule is that the lien of a judgment, when it attaches to a parcel of property, becomes a charge upon the precise interest which the judgment debtor has, and no other; and “ The attaching of the lien upon the legal title forms no impediment to the assertion of all equities previously existing over the property.” Freeman Judgments, sections-356-7. The rule has been so far modified in this State as to protect the good-faith purchaser and assignee of a judgment lien against secret, unknown and unrecorded -equities, inconsistent with the judgment debtor’s recorded title. Flanders v. O’Brien, 46 Ind. 284; Busenbarke v. Ramey, 53 Ind. 499; Wainwright v. Flanders, 64 Ind. 306; Armstrong v. Fearnaw, 67 Ind. 429; Tuttle v. Churchman, 74 Ind. 311.

¶4Upon the evidence in respect to the delivery of the deed,, if the case depended on that, the verdict could not be disturbed.

¶5Petition overruled.

/86/ind/224 · .json · Public domain