TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kedy v. Kramer

Kedy v. Kramer, 28 N.E. 1121 (Ind. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 6, 1891
Docket
No. 15,322
Judges
Elliott
Citations
28 N.E. 1121129 Ind. 4781891 Ind. LEXIS 86
Headnotes
Married Woman. — Liability of. — Note and Mortgage. — A married woman who buys property may execute a note and may, jointly with her husband, execute a mortgage to secure the purchase-money, and it is not material whether she purchases for herself alone or for herself and husband. If she acquires a beneficial ownership in the land purchased she receives a consideration for her contract, and is a principal and not a surety.
Summary
From the Clinton Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Elliott

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Elliott, J. —

The appellee sued upon a note and mortgage executed by William U. Kedy and Meda Kedy to Oliver Galvin, and by Galvin assigned to the appellee.

The answers of the appellants were in confession and avoidance, and hence admitted the material allegation of the complaint that the note and mortgage were assigned to the appellee. As this allegation was admitted, the appellants can not successfully insist that there is a failure of evidence,, because none was offered to prove the assignment.

A married woman who buys property may execute a note and may, jointly with her husband, execute a mortgage to secure the purchase-money, and it is not material whether she purchases for herself alone or for herself and her husband. Miller v. Shields, 124 Ind. 166 ; Berridge v. Banks, 125 Ind. 561 ; Young v. McFadden, 125 Ind. 254 . If she acquires a beneficial ownership in the land purchased she receives a consideration for her contract, and is a principal,, not a surety. Such a contract as that of the purchase of land where there is one deed conveying to a wife and her husband jointly, can not be split into fragments to the prejudice of the vendor, but, as to him, all the purchasers are principals, and the promise to pay indivisible. Where the vendor conveys to the wife, naming her as sole grantee, it is even more clear that she can not be heard to aver that the consideration did not move to her.

We have not examined the questions of appellate practice discussed by appellees’ counsel with care, but from such an examination as we have given them we are inclined to think, the points well made.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1906: 11912: 11919: 11922: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Elwood Trust Co. v. Fritz135 N.E. 145 (Ind. 1922)
  2. Aldridge v. Clasmeyer123 N.E. 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 1919)
  3. Scott v. Collier78 N.E. 184 (Ind. 1906)
  4. Washburn v. Gray97 N.E. 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 1912)

Most recent

  1. Elwood Trust Co. v. Fritz135 N.E. 145 (Ind. 1922)
  2. Aldridge v. Clasmeyer123 N.E. 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 1919)
  3. Washburn v. Gray97 N.E. 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 1912)
  4. Scott v. Collier78 N.E. 184 (Ind. 1906)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Miller v. Shields, 8 L.R.A. 406 (Ind. 1890) 20
Young v. McFadden, 25 N.E. 284 (Ind. 1890) 12
Berridge v. Banks, 25 N.E. 805 (Ind. 1890) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list