Union Mutual Life Insurance v. Abbott
Union Mutual Life Insurance v. Abbott
Opinion of the Court
On the 12th day of December, 1873, the appellee David B. Abbott, as sole plaintiff, commenced this
Error is assigned by the appellant, the life insurance company, in this court, which brings before us the error assigned by it, in general term, namely, that the court, at special
The only controversy in the trial court, and the only controversy in this court, is in relation to the priority of the respective mortgages executed by the Kelleys to the appellee David B. Abbott, and to the appellant, the Union Mutual Life Insurance Company, of Maine. The question for decision, therefore, is one of fact and not of law. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: In May, 1873, the defendant, Lewis L. Kelley, desired to purchase of John Purdue the real estate, in Pulaski county, described in each of the mortgages,. Purdue was willing to sell for $5,000, but he required the purchase-money to be paid in cash, and Kelley had no money. Thereupon Kelley applied to the appellant’s financial agent, in this State, for a loan of $6,500, to be secured by a mortgage on the real estate. In the mean time, it was necessary that Kelley should procure a deed of the real estate from Purdue, to enable him to show the appellant that he held the legal title to such real estate. But Purdue would not convey the real estate to Kelley without the payment in ■cash of the $5,000. To enable Kelley to close the purchase of the real estate and procure the conveyance thereof from Purdue, the appellant’s financial agent, on his personal credit, •borrowed the needed sum of $5,000, on short time, for Mr. Kelley, wherewith he procured from Purdue the conveyance ■of such real estate.
Kelley then made a formal written application to the appellant, through its financial agency at Indianapolis, for the loan of $6,500, and this application was forwarded to the appellant at its home office, in the State of Maine. This application was made to the appellant’s agent at Indianapolis, on the 31st day of May, 1873, and, on the same day, Kelley also applied to the appellant’s life insurance agent at Indianapolis for a policy of insurance on his 'life. On the same
Upon the foregoing facts, we are of opinion that the trial court was authorized and justified in finding,as it manifestly did, that the negotiations between Kelley and the appellant for the loan of $6,500 were not fully consummated, and that Kelley’s mortgage, bond and coupons, given to the appellant, were not fully executed by Kelley until the 14th day of June, 1873, the day of their respective dates.
In the mean time Kelley wanted more money than he could possibly realize from his application to the appellant. Accordingly, on the 4th or 5th day of June, 1873, Kelley made application to the appellee David R. Abbott, for a loan of $5,000, and represented that he owned the real estate, and his title to the same was clear. Finding upon examination that Kelley did own the real estate, and that his title thereto was dear, the appellee David B. Abbott, on the 7th day of June, 1873, loaned the sum of $5,000 to Lewis L. Kelley, and he and his wife, Samantha, on the same day, to secure his note for the sum so loaned, executed a mortgage on such real estate to the appellee David B. Abbott. Each of these mortgages was duly recorded in the recorder’s office of Pulaski county, within the time prescribed by law.
On the 22d day of October, 1873, the appellant, having learned before that day of the existence of the mortgage to
The foregoing facts are substantially those which the evidence in the record strongly tends to establish. Upon these facts, it seems to us that the equities of this case are with the appellee David B. Abbott, as against the appellant, the life insurance company. But, in any event, the evidence appearing in the transcript tends, clearly and forcibly, to sustain the finding of the trial court. In such a case, it is settled by a long line of decisions, that the finding or verdict below will not be disturbed by this' court on what might seem to be the preponderance of the evidence. Fort Wayne, etc., R. R. Co. v. Husselman, 65 Ind. 73; Hayden v. Cretcher, 75 Ind. 108 ; Cornelius v. Coughlin, 86 Ind. 461; McCloskey v. Indianapolis, etc., Union, 87 Ind. 20.
The motion for a new trial was correctly overruled.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Note. — The death of the appellee David B. Abbott, since the submission of this cause, having been suggested, the judgment of this court is rendered herein as of the November term, 1882.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The Union Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Abbott
- Status
- Published