The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-05-22
THE COURT RECORD,
Supreme Court-May 10.
sEDUcr1oN-FArHER's RIGHT OF ACTION

sEDUCTIoE-FATHER's RIGHT OF ACTION
10,204. David NJ. Bartlett vs. Henry Koche
Warren C. C.
Howk, faction by appeeeIfor the seduction
and getting with child his infant daughter. An
swer that the seduction had been adjudcated in
former action brought by appellee as the next
friend of the said Harriet KOchell. This answer
is bad. The cause of action In favor of an I'M
married female for her own seduction is purely
statutory and she may recover such damages as
may be assessed in her favor. (R. g. section 1851
The cause of action in such case in favor of the
father Is OF common law origin and he RECEIVERS
on the theory of loss of service and the ex pense
incident to her confinement. I'll Ind, Is; 30 i'd
154 sc i'd, 2971 And in such case the
fact that the daughter consented to the inter
course willingly or even procured 1t will not
preclude the father from recovering for as TO
him she has no right to consent and her act In
so doing is a nullity. O3 Ind, %; Ii Ind. 460
Judgment affirmed.
LEyY-PRoPERTY IN POSSESSION OF LAW.
1O,39s. LeviJ Pipher vs.. Nelson Foredyce
Daviess G. @.
Elliott, J.-Appellees were in possession of
personal property as vendees of the Nelson Iron
and Coal Company. and an execution on a judg
ment against said company being levied on the
property, the appellees Teplevied it out of the
hands Of the sheriff; while the appellees were In
possession under the writ OF replevin. appellant
levied another execution against the coal com
pany upon the property. AS a general rule prop
erty in legal custody cannot be seized by other
Judicial process than thar under which it came
into the custody OF the law. (64 Ind, 269.) The
possession of the appellees under the replevn
proceeding was in legal contemplation that OF
the law. 40 Pet, $50; Gilm, 455; 25 Wend
GA; Freeman on Elk, 1851 Judgment affirmed.
NvEYANCE-CoNDITIoNAL ESTATE.
10,301 stoughton ]. Fletcher VS.. Julia
Fletcher. Marion g c.
Niblack, jim 1873 stoughtOn A. Fletcher
and wife conveyed to their two sons, StoughtOn
]. and Allen NJ. Fletcher, certain real estate
during their natural lives and after their death
to their children respectively in fee simple. "At
the time of the conveyance neither OF the
grantees was married or had children, but both
subsequently married and had children, and the
question is whether under the deed the grantees
took fee simple interest in the lands conveyed.
The essential matter in the creation OF n fee Is
that such an estate Ia brought into existence as
may continue forever Where an estate is granted
subject to some condition in the instrument
creating it, or to some condition implied by law,
to be thereafter performed, 1t ia q conditional
fee, and wben tho condition Is performed the
estate becomes an absolute one. The
estate conveyed in this case was a
conditional fee. II the grantees had died with
out Issue the estate would have reverted to the
grantors. but when children were born to the
gran tees the fee became absolute and the es-
tate was relieved of It's liability to revert to the
grant tors The estate then became, II 1t had not
already been, as declared By the deed an estate
in fee simple and consequently the absolute
property OF the grantees. Where, az in this
case the inheritance and remainder are in the
same persons the grantee takes the entire es-