The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-08
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record, Yesterday.
Full Abstract of the Opinions Rendered
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.
Supreme Court-March !.

UNRECoRDED MoRTGAGE-sALE oP PROPERTY.
6.770. Mark f. Reeves VS.. James b. Howes
Ell al. Wayne C. c.
Woods, c. faction by APPELLANT upon note
of appellee secured by mortgage executed by
him and his wife. Before the mortgage was re-
corded appellees exchanged the land for lot
with one Rother who had no notice of the mort
gage. and it was asked that the mortgage be en-
forced against the lot, which had been decided to
appellee's wife This could only be done upon
the theory that appellee was the owner OF the
( land mortgaged to appellant, and there Is no
| allegation IN the complaint upon THIS point.
Mrs. Howes was not personally bound for the
debt nor by by the covenants OF the mortgage,
and is not estOpped by contract from asserting
title TO the land conveyed TO her. As against
her the complaint was not good Judgment al
firmed.
MANDATE-BILL OF ExCEPTIoNs-PRACTIcE
1o,717. State ex rel. Wick Jacob g. Sick.
Marshall c. c.
Elliott, 1.-The petition averred that Judge
Keith had refused TO sign u bill OF exceptions
rendered within the time given because the writ
OF attachment and sheriff's return thereon were
NOT copied in full the bin, although they were
properly designated and the words "here insert"
written at the proper place; that appellee had
succeeded said Keith as judge prayer for writ
| OF mandate to compel him to sign said bill. Upon
the facts stated it was the duty OF Judge Keith
| to sign the bill, ana upon his refusal to do so
mandate would have issued. But it is not shown
that Judge Slick was ever requestnd to act upon
the bill or that he ever refused to 10 so. Hence
the writ will not lie against him. In such case
| the party may, within a reasonable time, pre-
sent to the successor of the Judge to whom the
bill was first presented averified petition show
ing all the facts aud praying him to sign and
seal the bill, and if said judge then wrongiully
refuses, after hearing, to sign the bill writ of
mandate will lie. Writ refused.
CRIMINAL cAsEs-cHANGE OF VENUE.
1o,467. Thomas Hunnel VS.. The State. Van
derbnrg C. c.
Nihlack, J.-PrOseeution against appellant for
murder. After ten members of the jury had
been impaneled appellant made application for
| a change of venue from the county on account of
| lienS nU in hia mfr thnr ha had
not learned the facts before. The application
was refused on the ground that it came roo late.
| IL has been held that the right to apply for a
change of venue remains open until the
trial begins, in the absence of any rule of court
| TO the contrary 70 Gill, 290; 20 ARK, 444)
There was no rule of court on the subject IN this
case. The trial does not begin until the panel is
completed and the jury sworn. tS3 Ind, 2S9;
80 i'd, l; AZ i'd. 60J By section III of the Re-
| vised Statutes of 1881, the court is peremptory
| required to change the venue from the county
in capital cnses upon proper application made,
| Ii was error, therefore, for the court To refuse
| the application. Judgment reversed.
wIDow-REAL CHARACTERIZATION.
9,492. Jacob Miller VS.. Mary Noble. Madison
C. &.
Elliott, IA widow who marries second or
| subsequent time, having children by the former
| marriage through which her title to land is de-
| rived, takes as against them only an estate for
| life, and one who buys under Judgment against
| her takes more. as Ind, 10; IS i'd, 81 }
Where title is not put in issue in partition pro-
ceedings, the partition does not settle any ques-
tiul Vi tllIe, anu inc utles u tne parties are
| GA Ind, 2S3; IL i'd, 237; 81 i'd, 463J Judg-
menG affirmed.
MECHANICS LIENS -PUBLIC PROPERTY-PRAC-
TICE.
1o,256. Commissioners Parke county VS.. Will
lam ii. O'COnner. ParSe c. G.
HOwR, J.-Appellee averred in his complaint
that Johnston Brothers were sub contractors for
doing certain work on the new courthouse of
Parke county: that under their employment he
did work and had taken proper steps TO acquire
a mechanlc's lien on such court house for
the amount due him. The action was
| for the foreclosure of such lien,
| This was not a claim against the county, withip
| the meaning of sections 5,75S-9-60 r. s. 1881
and the Circuit Conrt had original Jurisdiction
| OF the action. But mechanic or material man
| cannot acquire a lien against property held for
the public use, such cou house, unless the
| statute expressly provides therefor. q Watts
and j., 1917 Phillips, Mich. Liens, l79; II n.
Y, 498; 70 ILL.,, So; 81 Iowa, 7o). Judgment re-
| veFsed.