Jasper County Democrat, Volume 16, Number 101, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 March 1914 — COURT NEWS [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

COURT NEWS

■ - , i 1 • 1 .j; Higher court record of interest to readers of The Democrat: 8283. The First National Bank of Rensselaer vs. Margaret Hansford. •Jasper C. C. Affirmed. Felt, J. M ) Action by appellee for conversion of the proceeds of note and mortgage assigned to it alleging she was indebted, to another and her husband was indebted to bank and the assignment was made on agreement of appellant to pay the proceeds on appellee's indebtedness, but that it applied it on bank’s claim against husband. The allegations of the complaint showing a wrongful conversion of funds by appellant, and demand by appellee need be alleged. (2) The evidence, though conflicting, is sufficient to sustain the verdict. (3)' The instructions, though

inaccurately drawn, are’ not reversible error, there being some errors in favor of appellant and some agiainst, but none warranting a reversal. 8248. Thomas J. Wolf, “Jr., vs. Marion L. Russell et al. Jasper G C. Affirmed. Hottel, J. (1) Appellee's grantor owned a farm on which were sixteen hay stacks. He owned appellant $2 10.7 3, and executed an instrument in the form ot a bill of sale to appellant. He then bargained with appellee for toe sale of the farm and the property thereon, and requested appellee tp, assume the debt to appellant, and take the hay subject to appellant's claim, which appellee refused to do, and the farm and property thereon was conveyed to appellee without exception. Other evidence is. given,: showing appellant and appellee's grantor considered appellant’s just rument. as security for the debt, ami not in payment of it. The ea iden.ee. supporting the construction oi appellant's instrument as a mortgage, and if never having been recorded, there was no error in finding against, appellant in his action of replevin to recover the hay. (2) ‘‘Appellant having , failed to have such instrument recorded, it was invalid as against appellee Russell and hence as to him was insufficient to give appellant any right to possession of the property described therein.” 22141. William E. Pinney et al. vs. Francis W. Powers et al. Jasper < . C. Appellants’ objections to appellee's motion to advance.