Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1852-07-08
Decisions of the Supreme Court Of Indiana
MAY TERM, 1852.
lnrronrrD EXPRESSLY FOR THE SENTINEL, DuzASl

XIII-SMrH and BELDrNG .. STEvENs.-Error to the
Jennings Circuit Court.
Debt by Stevens upon two sealed notes made Dy on.h
Beldnp and one Edwards with Endorsement signed ny
other persons guaranying the payment oil the notes
Upon the trial. the defendants offered to prove oy Paa
testimony a verbal agreement by which the P'ainu"
accented Inc Endorsement on the and certain I'M
dertakng OF the ndorsers in full satisfaction OF tue
The court refused permit such evidence 10 Oe s'e"
That ,b evidence thus offered was correctly excluded
The objection TO it is that it is contradictory 10 tue
written agreement of the parties as evidenced oy tue
notes and the Endorsement. The legal enec, VI WI"
ten contract consisting both OF note ana the inuo
ment cannot varied qualified by Paro agreement
simultaneous with the Endorsement
Judgment affirmed.
XIy.-Yosr .. SHAFFER-Error to the Henry Circuit
Court
That where person had sold larm irandnienty
representing the number OF acres II con'aineo 70 DC
raater than il really was he could not place himself IN
noston to enforce his contract by subsequent
y purchasing adjoining tract and Offering 10 convey
i to the purchaser of his farm in order to make up the
quantity he had represented 1t to contain
XVI-THRoP u. JoHNsoN.-Error TO the Decatur Cir
cult Court.
Petition by Johnson and Kezah, his wife, to obtain
dover in certain real estate the ground that Samuel
d. Henry the former husband oil Kezlah died seized OF
it, The third plea was that said Samuel held the land
by virtue OF devise from his father made IN accordance
with an agreement between Samuel and his father that
the latter should support the widow OF the former
Averment that he did not support said widow.
The found that the facts stated IN the pctlllon
were true that the land had been aened by said Sam
uel ID. Henry; and that the said kezlah was lawfully
entitled the dover claimed in the petition The court
also appointed commissioners assign the dover, and
instructed them to make the assignment according 10
the value of the land at the time OF the assignment ex
elusive increased value of the land caused by
provements made the alienation oil the land by said
Henry.
BLACKBOARD, ]. held
Ist That the third plea bad. SuPPosng there
was such condition annexed to the DEVISE in accordance
with such agreement between Samuel and his father
the non.perormance thereof would have authorized the
heirs of The devsor to the land and thus destroy
the devise But until such entry those holding under
| the devise entitled to the land
81 That the instructions TO the commissioners to
sign the dover according to the value oil the land al the
tune of the assignment exclusive Of the improvements
made after the husbands alienation cannot be complain
ed OF by the defendant, and is in accordance with the
decision of this court in Wilson o. patmdH, Blackf
223.
Decree affirmed, with costs
XVII-CoNAwAv u. SHELToN.-.Error to the Henry Cir.
| cult Court.
Action on the case by Phebe Ann Shelton, by her next
| friend, Benjamin Plummer, against Charles Conway
to damages for the breach oil promise oil mar
/ rIage.
| PERKINS J.. held
Ist That the plaintiff had right to prove by parol
the fact that had passed between the parties with
producing the letters. After the fact OF the exist
ence of the letters proved its force as tending TO
prove marriage contract would be lessened II not de-
stroyed by withholding their contents
3D. That the Jury the sole Judges oil what lacts
are proved to them in a cause and the court should
charge alphabetically saying that II they iound such
| and such facts proved, they might lind, &c.
3d. That the attorneys for the plaintiff below should
have been permitted to in argument the fact that
the defendant had taken change oil venue
4th. That promise made after the defendant was Of
age would sustain the plaintiff under the general
issue and plea Of infancy admitted the original prom
while minor and nothing remained TO be proved by
the plaintiff than the ratification OF that promise when
| the defendant came oil age.
5th That where there is any evidence tending to
establish fact weight is for the jury, and it renders
instructions upon that point relevant
| Judgment reversed, and remahded Tor new
trial
XVIII-SHERRr o. SAUsHERRY.--Error to the DelGoGre
Crcnit Court.
Bill in chaneery by James w. Sausherry against John
Sherry, his guardian, praying an accounting and pay
ment in money 1t appeared that the guardian pur-
chased the request of his ward and Tor has wards
and benefit tract Of land, for which he paid $500
that the ward took two before he came
Of age-that hence for all that time he knew the oca
ton quality and price of the land; that with this
knowledge and without any undue influence on the part
of his guardian, he accepted, after arriving at majority
deed for said land and afterwards retained the posses
sion and of it for fifteen months, without objection
and that the Probate Court the guardians na settle
ment approved of the investment of the wards money
in the land in question The bill ayerred fraud in the
transaction on the part Of the guardian.
The court the hearing oil the case, permitted ev
dence TO be going behind order OF the Rush Pro
bate Court IN iavor oil Sherry against Sausherry Tor The
payment OF board and schooling Of the latter during hi:
minority for the purpose Of contestng the oil action
and consider alton on which the order was founded.
PERKINS, j. held.
Ist That from the facts shown, the conclusion is thai
the ward accepted the land after becoming Of age
his unbiased judgment; and having done lie i.
bound by that acceptance II there were any crcum
stances in the making it fraudulent he should hav,
shown them.
3D. That it the Office and duty OF ths Probate Court
to exercise a care and guardianship the estates o.
minors and others under disability when legally placed
under their jurisdiction and to direct those who may be
the administration Of such They possess the
powers make all orders necessary the proper dis
charge of such duty; and principle it TO
those orders should not be mpeached collaerally ex
cept for fraud Ii they be- they will certainly af
ford protection those whose duty is unde
Them and the comforting Of the power upon the court tC
make them was idle