Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1848-06-01
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
Man Term. 1918.


REPORTED FOR THE SENTINEL BY STEVENS, ESQ.
MONDAY, May 22d
Taylor ct al. Jones. Error to the yIgo Circuit
Court.
authorizing the plaintiff during the progress of trial 10
amend his and pleading by striking the
defendants when there several, applies
well 10 actions eOntractu, actions ez deeto.
Such amendment made after entering uf0n the trial
does not entiile the adverse party a continuance.
note TO which the signature of A. b. &. and ID. had been
note, though the signature OF Z. and F. had also been
affixed 10 the note as Joint makers without authority
The added without authority may be regarded
as surPlusage Several notes by the same makers pay
able TO different persons, being in the hands of agent
for collection the makers paid the agent sum of money
upon account without directing its application. In suit
afterwards brought upon of the against the
makers, appeared that the payee had received part
of the sum paid. Held, That though application
had been made by the of the several up
the time of the trial. the makers could not during the
progress of the trial and in absence Of the of the
other notes. and after the upon had gone
Of the hands of the agent, direct the paid To be
applied to the payment of the sued upon in whole
or IN part, so as to present judgment for the whole
amount OF that note IN suit.
The Common Council Of Indianapolis q. Fairchild.
Error the Marion C. G.
BLACKBOARD, This action of debt for 800.
SUIT commenced before the common council of Indian
apolis in 1871. Judgment for plaintiff Appealed by
defendant. The declaration states that the common
council passed ordinance ordering of 800 per
quart &C. within the bounds OF said of the do
notion, &c that defendant sold spiriuous liquors with
out license and in less quantities than quart 10 one
James Resor contrary the of the statute and of
said ordnance The defendant put in three pleas LIST,
Nil Debet 3D. That by Of the legislature of 80 it
enacted, hat in Whatever should the COM
mon council Of Indianapolis levy collect any taxes
money or labor from the Inhabitants of the donation
OF White river, for any purpose Of the corporation
proper not more than is necessary and sufficient keep
IN good repair all the streets and alleys running through
I hQ fhofc do tho rtro Qrcr
the defendant nhabitant Of the donation west Of
the river; that the sales of liquors made
west side OF said river and that there
alleys on The west side of White river, DC, upon which
any taxes, &c. could be appropriated. The Sd plea is
the same the 3D. excepting that instead of saying that
there Streets &c. upon which, &c, and alleges
that the money sought TO be recovered intended
for repairing streets, &c, of White river &c. but
for other purposes An unqualified averment that there
not any street alley of White river would be
bar-otberwise the plea raises question Of law which
Is not uaversabe The second plea also insufficient
as il cannot there be made subject Of inquiry hon the
council could apply the money The objection that
recovered for breach of the license law should be applied
only to the use of the seminary and not for the of
the corporation, good
The clause Of The constitution 0, 3, applies
DULY 10 breaches Of the criminal law penal statute
is no part OF the criminal law Judgment recrsed
TUESDAY May 23d.
Brelcington q. Lone. Error to the Dearborn c. G.
SMITH, J.-Action of Irespass guare clausam fregit
Courts justice established try questions pertain
ing 10 the rights OF indlviduasan action is for the
covery OF that which ones due In such actions il
there is conflict Of laws they relate the particular
under consideration, whether from constitutional
reasons otherwise, decision from the very nature oil
the case, decision be made according the laws
which paramount. But courts will go out
OF their proper sphere to determine the conslulionaIy
or uncoDstutionaIiy of iaw-not declare law uncon-
sutional in the abstract, that would be interfering
with the Legislative, which is separate and distinct
powe-only from The necessity Of the will they de-
eide in such matters and then the decision has reference
to that under consideration, excepting where may
oper precedent II is we'll settled that courts will
not take cognizsnce of fcliiinns suits.
Doe or dem. Holman Collins. Error 10 the Ripley
Circuit Court.
1.-The law Of another State does not govern
in this relation n contract made ia that State unless
piovcn That execution law should govern which FIRST
extend into and formed part of contract-a contract
made in Illinois, law of this could become in
lcorporaled with its dale-ony whom it underwent
IcIange in this State.
The purchaser from special private agent is bound
take notice of the extent OF his powers, and sale by
unauthorized agent invalid Officers are presumed "a
know their duty, yet party may rebrt that presump
Ision and void sale.
! Heimsr Biteor ct al Error to the franklin Circuit
4 Court.
BLAchroRD, LIN trespass, count for injury realty
bng 1tere clessuW fsgf, csn be joined with for
Injury 2 pefeop11ly q tonus asporiafss