Rensselaer Republican, Volume 12, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 October 1879 — An Important Legal Question. [ARTICLE]

An Important Legal Question.

On the 27tli of July, 1305, Mary Pray, who was then the wife of Thomas W. Pray, and the owner in fee simple of one hundred acres of land worth three thousand dollars, joined with her husband \u a conveyance of the land by a warranty deed to their son, Lcander, and his wife as joint tenants. On the same day the grantees in the deed secured by mortgage, a prorniaory note to the grantors to maintain them during life, and the grantees &Ibo promised in said mortgage, one year after the death of both grantors, to pay to Helen M. Sample, a daughter of tho grantors, the sum of seven hundred dollars. The grantees partly performed the contract by caring for their father, who lived only six months, and their mother, who lived eleven j-ears after the date of the mortgage.

On the 29th day of April, 1872, Mary Pray, the surviving mortgagee, in due form released said mortgage ot record and in October, 1876, she died. On the 271 h day of August, 1872, Leander and wife sold the land to one William H. McDonald ahd made to him a warranty deed, and McDonald paid the full value thereof. In the year 1877, and more than a year after the death of Mary Pray, Helen M. Samples, by Mordecni F. Chilotoe, ot Rensselaer, and Hon. Charles 11. Test, of Indianapolis, her attorneys, filed a complaint against Pray and McDon. aid to foreclose said mortgage, and the defendants appeared by Hon. R. S. Dwiggins and S. P. Thompson, their attorneys. The proof sltOwed that there was no consideration paid by Mrs. Sample, and that the defend ant McDonald knew ot the mortgage and release during the life of the testator. The case was tried beforo Hon. Thomas B. Ward, of the Laiayetle Superior Court The contest was aclose and spirited one and involved intricate - and interesting questions of law. The Court found as conclusions of law that Mary Pray had the legal right to release said mortgage, and that the release of the mortgage removed all liens from the land, and relieved Leander from the payment of the seven hundred dollars, and found generally for all the defendants.

The agreement in the mortgage, it was contended, was a gift or advancement, but as there was no delivery, the same was adjudged incomplete. The court considered the oontraet partook of the nature of a bequest and could be and was revoked.

It is well settled as a rule of law that a promise iu a mortgage to pay a earn of money at a definite time to ii third person caa ho enforced by the third person. This case would present a fine field for theaetion of the supreme court, and the plaintiffs have taken proper steps to appeal tbe case.