Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1852-01-15

presumed be correct the transcript does not pro-
Tess o contain all the evidence. Blackf. 246.
Judgment reversed.
The City Of Madison rs Ross. Error to the Jefer-
son Circuit Court.
Ross brought an action in case against the City OF
Madison for injury sustained by him owner oil tan.
yard in consequence Of the insuceney Of cuyert and
ernbankment erected by authority Of the city The gen.
eral issue and special plea pleaded. Judgment
for the plaintiff.
On the trial the court below gave various instructions
10 the effect that if the damage plaintiff happened IN
consequence of the improvement, the city was liable 81
all events The court refused to give the following In
If the jury shall find that the damage complained Of
was occssioned by flood OF much more extra
ordinary than usual that ordinarily careful and thought
G men and ordinarily skiul engineers would not con-
template that such food would occur, and said
culvcr and improvement did prove sufficient for all pur-
poses for about three years the jury should find the dam
age have happened by what called the of God,
and should find for The defendant"
: Judge PERKINS held,
That this instruction was within the law and ought
therefore, have been given In the Of the May
or &c, of New York rs Bailey Denis, 433, II Is SAID
thai 90 the degree of and foresight which It IS ne
eessary TO use IN eases oil this description, must always
he proportion TO the nature and magnitude oil the III
jury that will be likely TO result from the occurrence
which is be anticipated and guarded against And II
should be that and prudence which discreet and
cautions individual woud ought TO use If the whole
risk and loss to he his exclusively"
Judgment reversed.
Larsh RS Brown Error 10 the Union Crcuit Court.
i A bill in chancery filed by Larsh against Brown,
in which the complainant prayed that the defendant
pfhOu oath and make full answer OF all their
partnership accounts. Such given. and
from il il appeared that the complainant largely in
dehied 10 the defendant Replication in denial &c. De.
cree against the complainant for 80 dollars and 45
The court below instructed the Jury that the
is evidence aud shond he taken as unless mpeacl
cd dsproved by at least witness, eircumstan
The court refused to give instructions the effect
that the evidence whatever Of The truth
of the accounts therein set out, but required the
same proof as any other pleading which is denied
/ Judge BLACKBOARD held,
That the Court below ought to have given tho nsruc
tion which il refused to give and ought 10 have Civ
en- the II did, because answer vithout oath can
operate evidence for the defendant under the act
OF lS4T, p. co.
! Judgment reversed.
/ So6ald rs White Water v Canal Co. Error TO tho
Favette Circuit Court.
In 1921. Lewis Sofel purchased a lot in the Of
Connersvile upon which lie lived with his wife Phehe
the plaintiff until 1893. when he died intestae. She
manned there until 1915. il not known that he had
any other heirs than his wife. witness had known
him for seventeen years. and had heard OF
The canal company had injured the lot in the consruc
ton Of their canal TO the amount Of 100 dollars. Upon
these facts the conrt below gave Judgment Tor plaintiff
for 33 dollars and 33 cents only.
Judge PERKINS held.
! That these facts. prima face rchu the presumption
that Lewis Sofed left other heirs than The plaintiff
and orr s'atnte in such case irving her the Who'll OF
her husbands estate the below ought have
dered Judgment FOR 100 dollars.
Judgment reversed.
Sample rs. Lamb. Error to the ST. Joseph Circui'
Court
! Sample brought suit against Lamb, before justice
note for % dollars and al cents which had been
made payable to Gilmore and Kaufman 10y them as
signed TO Sample and by him to Kaufman but snhse-
queniy Sample took 1t back, striking his assign
ment 10 Kaufman. The defendant pleaded n set-of o
300 dollars, owing 10 him by kaufman, whilst he had
the note Sc After he had proven his seso, the plain
tilt released Kaufman from liability 10 him, and propos
Cd prove by him that this seto had been settled and
paid hut the below refused hear the testimony
Judge PERKINS held,
That undrr the provisions of the r. S. T. 577, Sect
O. this set-o coGd he pleaded against the plaintiff and
f he obtained judgment for any amount on The note
il would involve determination upon the validity Of the
account against kaufman. and bar any other snit upon
IL and the account is larger than the note. il
parent that Kaufman Interested in swearing it Oh
for he would then be free from liability the whole
Judgment affirmed.
Decker rs. Shaner. Error to the Whitley Circuit
/ Court.
This was an action of assumpsit against Decker adj
n illustrator of Stoakman The facts shown by the
e,ilcn are that ShalTer sold mare to Cuppy who
gave his Soon after Stoakman bought the same
mare Of Cnppy, and promised him TO pay his note 10
Shaier. The pitmise was not in writing. Afterwards
Sookman refused pav, Lut said he did not Cup
py and intended pay Shaher. Cuppy insolvent-
The Court below gave judgment for the amount OF Tie
Judge PERKINS held:
| That this judgment erroneous, because 10 sus-
stain IT, agreement ought to have been proven. by
which Cuppy released from his noie and in con-
sideraiion thereof Soakman became debtor the plain
tiff for the amount OF the note Such an agreement
men cannot be inferred from the evidence. Gritty
Pl 10.
Judgment reversed.
Hobbs ct al. Commissioners, &C., of Lagrange
County. Error 10 the Lagrange Circuit Court.
This was a bill in Chancery for specific periorm-
ance brought by the Commissioners and Agent of La
grange comfy. Decree for the plaintiffs BY act
of the Legislature the county seat OF this county was
authorized TO he relocated by certain Commissioners,
who empowered receive donations for that puT
pose. The defendants below executed their bond 10
the Commissioners. containing. among other things.
this provision and shall also donate for tho Of said
county 90 acres Of land to he laid oil in lots on the
west side Of said village plat" (he located
seat) Subsequently, deed was executed 10y them for
20 OF land the west side Of the village the base
line Of the land extending only along about ho of said
west line. This deed received by the county
Four after this suit is instituted have the deed
corrected hy making the base the fase line extend along
the whole Of the western boundary of said De-
ercc below for the plaintiffs.
Without deciding whether the rule Of construction
would require that the choe line he taken as The
base. whether parol evidence is admissible to
plain such grants, nir
Judge PERKINS held:
That as the decd embraced the requisite quantity Of
land and gave plain description Of its location and
no pIetence made Of misrepresentation, conceal
ment, fraud. misunderstanding of any kind about the
contents of the decd and this decd had been accept
ed hy proper officers the county estopped from
going hehind that acceptance.
Decree reversed.
Kossuth and His Opponents.
We at loss understand The motives Of some Of