Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-09-20

OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
NAV TERM lax

Ldhu, uuuct COlOt Ol Ilc ny uoou VI OehSA
written instrument, and occupies and improves
it, he acquires in law actual possession to the
extent of the boundaries contained in the
writing, and this though the title conveyed
to him by the deed is good for nothing.
To constitute color of title it is not essential
that the title should appear, prima Jaeie, to
be good.
Where a party is in possession of land I'M
der and in pursuance of a state of facts which,
of themselves, show the character and extent
of his entry and claim, such facts constitute
color of title, and are constructive notice to
the world of the character of the claim.
A. and B., in 1917, purchased a quarter
section of land Of the United States, at two
dollars per acre, paying in hand a fourth of
the purchase money. and receiving a credit
for the residue. In 1920 they assigned their
interest in the purchase to c.. and d., partners
in the mercantile business in Cincinnati-D.
residing in Cincinnati, but B. elsewhere. The
firm having failed in business, and being In
debted to Longworth, of Cincinnati, in order
to pay the debt to him, or a part of it, B. sold
the interest of the firm in the land to Long
worth, and to convey il, executed an instru-
ment as follows: For value received we here
by assign to Nicholas Longworth, OF, &C., all
our right and claim to, &C., describing the
quarter-section,) as witness our hands this
22d day of September, 1921. C. and d., by
the acting partner d. The instrument was
attested by a witness. At this time the tract
was covered with an unbroken forest. In
1922 Longworth appointed An agent to take
charge of his purchase and had ever after
wards continued the agency; the agent had
constantly resided on or near the land; he
had cut timber over the whole of it, and pre-
vented Others from cutting, warned people
off of it, and employed other persons to watch
trespassers and keep them of. He had paid
the taxes on the quarter, leased parts of it to
different persons, &C.; but the whole tract was
never enclosed; but it had been known even by
the Oldest inhabitants as the Longworth tract
In 1925, payment was made to the United
States of the residue of the purchase money,
but there not having been forwarded to the
Land Office an assignment of the certificate
given to A. and b. the patent issued nomi-
nally to them. Held, that Longworth went
into possession under color of title. Held,
also. that his possession covered the whole
tract. Held, also, that his possession for more
than 20 years had perfected his title. A(-
frmed.
j. G. Jones and J. Z. Blythe, for the APP
pellants.
C.. Baker for the appellee.
The Lafayette and indianapolis Railroad
Co. q Smith. Eerror~ Tippccanoe C. C.
GooKNs, 1.-The acts of January %, 1912,
claws 1872, p. 81 and of January 10, 1916,
claws lS46, p. 149,) gave to the Lafayette
and Indianapolis Railroad Company the power
to appropriate private property so far as ne
cessary for the construction of their road, and
devolved upon the Board of Directors the
duty of having the damages assessed, upon
application made to them, in the manner
provided in the Internal Improvement Law
of 1886.
Where a special remedy Is given by statute,
for the taking Of private property in the con-
s~truction of public works, that remedy only
can be adopted. Reversed, with instructions
to dismiss the suit.
r. C. Gregory, r. Jones and z. Baird, for
the plaintiff.
III. w. Chase, G. 8. Orth and Z. I'll. Brackett,
for the defendant.
WIGdINs, Administrator, u. keller and
Wife. Appeal from the Wayne Common
Pleas.
GooKINs, Jour statute in relation to con-
tracts not to be performed within q year, is
substantially like that of 90 Car. 2, C. 8. sec.
4, which has always been held to apply only
to contracts which by the express stipulations
of the parties, were not to be performed with
in a year, and not to those which might or
might not, upon a contingency, be performed
within u year.
An express promise can only revive a pre-
cedent good consideration which might have
been enforced at law, through the medium
of an implied promise, had it not been sus-
pended by some positive rule Of law; but can
give no original right Of action, if the obliga-
ton on which it is founded never could have
been enforced at law, though not barred by
any legal maxim or statute expression.
There is no implied promise from the father
of a bastard child to the mother to furnish it
a support.
A promise by the father of a bastard child
to pay the step-father for the child's support
past and future, if he will continue to support
it, is binding.-The appellees having RENTED
an excess in the judgment below, agirmAi
w. A. Bickle. for the appellant.
0. 2. Morton, for the appellee.
;. PATE o. HULL. Error Ripley Common
Pleas.
STUART, 1.-The rule requiring printed
a briefs in the Supreme Court was adopted il
May, 1853, and took effect at the Novembe
term, 1853. This cause was submitted il
! May, 1854, and the plaintiff in error filed
I written brief only. Held, that all errors wer,
i thereby waived. Affirmed. with 10 per cent
damages.
A Brewer, for the plaintiff.
G. Holland, for the defendant.
HUNTER y. THE STATE. Appeal from tn
Lawrence Common Pleas.
PERKINS, Jan appeal cannot be take
from the judgment of a Court imposing
penalty for a contempt, unless the appeal
specially authorized by statute.
10 There is no statute in force in this stat
n which allows an appeal in such cases. unles
= possibly, a statute in relation to an appeal b
If attorneys; aud that seems not to be in exist