Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

98 Ind. 429

Richardson v. Schultz

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1884

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1884-05-29

<p>Mabbied Woman. — Sheriff’s Sale.— Wife’s Inchoate Interest in Husband’s Lands Protected Against Conveyance-in Secret Trust. — B. and S., being sureties of T., whose real estate had been sold by the sheriff for about half its value to satisfy another debt, took a deed of the land from T. and an assignment of the certificate, and afterwards a sheriff’s deed, both deeds to B. in trust for himself and S., each paying half the sum necessary to buy the certificate. The same land was afterward sold on execution to satisfy the debt for which they were sureties, and title passed to a stranger by virtue of this sale.. The wife of B. then claimed a third of the land as wife, under section 2508, B. S. 1881, and by suit against the last purchaser had it set off to her by partition. She had no notice of the trust.</p> <p>Held,, that she took as a purchaser for value without notice, free from the trust, by virtue of section 2970, and not by descent, and could maintain ejectment against S.</p>

Relies on May v. Fletcher · Bowen v. Preston · Sterry v. Arden

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-05-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1915

11 state decisions

501884189019001910decided

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.

Bicknell, C. C.

¶2Titles to land are acquired by descent or by purchase, and in no other way.

¶3A widow takes by descent when her husband died seized; if he was seized during the coverture, but did not die seized, she takes by purchase. May v. Fletcher, 40 Ind. 575; Bowen v. Preston, 48 Ind. 367. And she is a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Marriage is not only a valuable consideration; it is the highest consideration known to the law. See upon this point, in addition to the authorities cited in the principal opinion, Bishop Married Women, sections 775-6; Sterry v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 261, 271; Smith v. Allen, 5 Allen, 454.

¶4A purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice of a secret trust, is not bound thereby. R. S. 1881, section 2970. A wife’s inchoate interest in her husband’s lands becomes absolute on a judicial sale thereof, the same as if he had died on the day of sale. R. S. 1881, sec. 2508; Elliott v. Cale, 80 Ind. 285. The petition for a rehearing ought to be overruled.

¶5Per Curiam. — The petition is overruled.

/98/ind/429 · .json · Public domain