Leslie v. Slusher
Leslie v. Slusher and Others
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Guriam.
Suit 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.
The 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.
It is, also, objected that the judgment for costs is wrong, but no motion to tax the costs below was made.
The decree below is affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.