doubtful claim in Indiana

1940The subject is discussed in Barrett v. City of Mobile (1900), 129 Ala. 179 , 30 So. 36 , 87 Am.

1938J. 324, §17. “. . . it is a familiar principle of law that the com *551 promise of a matter in dispute is a sufficient consideration to support a contract, when the same is entered into in the absence of fraud.” Fender, Admr. v. Phillips, Admr. (1915), 59 Ind. App. 85, 92 , 108 N. E. 971 .

1938J. 324, §17. “. . . it is a familiar principle of law that the com *551 promise of a matter in dispute is a sufficient consideration to support a contract, when the same is entered into in the absence of fraud.” Fender, Admr. v. Phillips, Admr. (1915), 59 Ind. App. 85, 92 , 108 N. E. 971 .

1907Whether section two of the act of 1889 (Acts 1889, p. 430, §2645 Burns 1894) relates to warranty mortgages, or whether to prior or subsequent conveyances, as questioned by appellants, are questions not material to the disposition of this case (Burget v. Merritt [1900], 155 Ind. 143 ), for it is very clear that under the broader and less doubtful rule of the common law appellants have no interest in the fund in controversy that they can assert against the beneficiaries under the mortgage.

1907Hoy v. State, ex rel. (1907), 168 Ind. 506 .

1895The court says: ‘ ‘ The most that can be claimed by the plaintiff, * "x" is that it was a doubtful one; and the compromise of a pending suit upon a doubtful claim is a good consideration for a promise. ” In Harris v. Cassady, 107 Ind. 158 , the court says: “ It is not necessary that the claim asserted should be a legal one, but it is necessary that it must have some foundation in law or in equity. * * If the claim asserted by the appellants appeared to have any foundation, the cases of Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136 ; Cronkhite v. White, 25 Ind. 418 ; Thompson v. Nelson, 28 Ind. 431 , and Hart

1895The court says: ‘ ‘ The most that can be claimed by the plaintiff, * "x" is that it was a doubtful one; and the compromise of a pending suit upon a doubtful claim is a good consideration for a promise. ” In Harris v. Cassady, 107 Ind. 158 , the court says: “ It is not necessary that the claim asserted should be a legal one, but it is necessary that it must have some foundation in law or in equity. * * If the claim asserted by the appellants appeared to have any foundation, the cases of Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136 ; Cronkhite v. White, 25 Ind. 418 ; Thompson v. Nelson, 28 Ind. 431 , and Hart

1895The court says: ‘ ‘ The most that can be claimed by the plaintiff, * "x" is that it was a doubtful one; and the compromise of a pending suit upon a doubtful claim is a good consideration for a promise. ” In Harris v. Cassady, 107 Ind. 158 , the court says: “ It is not necessary that the claim asserted should be a legal one, but it is necessary that it must have some foundation in law or in equity. * * If the claim asserted by the appellants appeared to have any foundation, the cases of Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136 ; Cronkhite v. White, 25 Ind. 418 ; Thompson v. Nelson, 28 Ind. 431 , and Hart

1895The court says: ‘ ‘ The most that can be claimed by the plaintiff, * "x" is that it was a doubtful one; and the compromise of a pending suit upon a doubtful claim is a good consideration for a promise. ” In Harris v. Cassady, 107 Ind. 158 , the court says: “ It is not necessary that the claim asserted should be a legal one, but it is necessary that it must have some foundation in law or in equity. * * If the claim asserted by the appellants appeared to have any foundation, the cases of Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136 ; Cronkhite v. White, 25 Ind. 418 ; Thompson v. Nelson, 28 Ind. 431 , and Hart

1895The court says: ‘ ‘ The most that can be claimed by the plaintiff, * "x" is that it was a doubtful one; and the compromise of a pending suit upon a doubtful claim is a good consideration for a promise. ” In Harris v. Cassady, 107 Ind. 158 , the court says: “ It is not necessary that the claim asserted should be a legal one, but it is necessary that it must have some foundation in law or in equity. * * If the claim asserted by the appellants appeared to have any foundation, the cases of Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136 ; Cronkhite v. White, 25 Ind. 418 ; Thompson v. Nelson, 28 Ind. 431 , and Hart

1895The court says: ‘ ‘ The most that can be claimed by the plaintiff, * "x" is that it was a doubtful one; and the compromise of a pending suit upon a doubtful claim is a good consideration for a promise. ” In Harris v. Cassady, 107 Ind. 158 , the court says: “ It is not necessary that the claim asserted should be a legal one, but it is necessary that it must have some foundation in law or in equity. * * If the claim asserted by the appellants appeared to have any foundation, the cases of Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136 ; Cronkhite v. White, 25 Ind. 418 ; Thompson v. Nelson, 28 Ind. 431 , and Hart

1895The court says: ‘ ‘ The most that can be claimed by the plaintiff, * "x" is that it was a doubtful one; and the compromise of a pending suit upon a doubtful claim is a good consideration for a promise. ” In Harris v. Cassady, 107 Ind. 158 , the court says: “ It is not necessary that the claim asserted should be a legal one, but it is necessary that it must have some foundation in law or in equity. * * If the claim asserted by the appellants appeared to have any foundation, the cases of Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136 ; Cronkhite v. White, 25 Ind. 418 ; Thompson v. Nelson, 28 Ind. 431 , and Hart

1885It was held in Fitzpatrick v. Papa, 89 Ind. 17 , that “A married- woman who executes a mortgage to secure the release of a valid lien can not escape the consequences of her act upon the ground that the mortgage was executed to secure the debt of the husband.