Legal Opinion

Conwell v. Evill

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 30, 1835PublishedCited by 6 opinions

ERROR, to the Dearborn Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBlackford, J.

Evill filed a bill in chancery against Con-well and Lewis, for the redemption of a lot of ground in the town of Aurora, which lot, as alleged in the bill, had been mortgaged by the complainant to Conwell. The deed, referred to in the bill, is a conveyance absolute on its face, by Lewis to Conwell. The answer of Conwell expressly denies that the deed was intended to be a mortgage; and asserts that it is, and was intended to be, an absolute conveyance. Lewis’s answer is to the same effect. The decree of the Circuit Court is in favour of the complainant.

Lewis, as appears by the evidence, had an…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Flint v. SheldonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
  2. Strong v. StewartNew York Court of Chancery · 1819
  3. James v. JohnsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
  4. Marks v. PellNew York Court of Chancery · 1815

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cole v. GrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Worley v. DrydenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
  3. Hazzard v. DukeIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Knowles v. KnowlesIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Matchett v. KniselyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API