The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-22
ooNvEYANcE-coNn1rIoN srnsrorrNr.

CoEvEYANCE-CoNDTTION SUBSEQUENT.
9,659. Jeffersonville, Madison y indianapolis
Railroad COMPANY VS.. Volhey G. Barbour ct al.
Hammond, 1.-The complaint of appellees
avetred that In lS41 they decided to the STATE
certain land for the use of the Madison & In
dianapolisr railroad for depot purposes, with the
condition that upon failure to erect build
ings and occupy the ground Tor said purpose
1t should revent back to the donors. Appel
la nts occupied the around for depot PURPOSES
until 1874, at which time they ceased to main
tain a depot building thereon, and this SUIT. was
| to recover possession Of the ground by the heirs
of the grantOrs. Conditions subsequent are not
favored in law and are strictly construed. Us
| Ind, $50: 4 Kent, 1907 No time was fixed in
which the company was to erect the buildin ga.
and the erection OF the same within Il reasonable
time and the occupancy of the ground for the
purpose designated for thirty years was n sub
stantial compliance With the condition Of the
deed. As the time of occupancy was not fixed,
tile parties must have intended that il should be
for q reasonable time, especially III the absence
of any avermeut that the grant0rs we're dam
aged by the failure TO use the ground for q de
pot since 1874. Under the circumstances 10 il
not unreasonable to suppose that the g%rantors
received, in the occupancy of the ground as a
depot for thirty wears. all the benefits which
they anticipated in making tine conveyance. Us
Ind, $50; Z Wall, 29OJ Judgment reversed.
$500. Jacksonville. Madison & indianapolis
Railroad Company VS.. Barbour ct al.
Hammond, J.-Thts case i5 in all essential r-
spects the same rs the one above. and unOn the
authority of the former the Judgment is re-
yersed.
hFh4 = M E. IhLN4 W.
10,159. VIM. II. Wilcox VS.. Alfred Mondy ct
al. Hendricks {. O.
Black, ca motion by a sheriff for permits
sion to permit him to amend his return to Il sale,
after il had become matter of record, so that IL
might show that the real estate had been offered
in parcels, is not a civil action, and the forming
ef issues of lsw aud fact and the trial thereof
are irregular. The application is addressed TO
the discretion of the court, ana is to be heard IA
q motion. And where the evidence shows that
within the knowledge of the sheriff the real e-
tate wasi In fact offered In parcels, and that this
fact was not stated in the return. there IL no
abuse of discretion IN permitting the amend
ment OF the return. freeman FIX, sections sos,
800. 1888; Herman tx, section PAS; Is Ina.
279; II i'd, SO; 70 i'd, 49, Judgment al
tirmed.
MOTION FOR NEW TRTAI-PRAcrIcE.
1924. Barnet Wallace IS. Henry Ransdell.
Johnson {, c.
BickneiI. C.-This court takes judicial no.
tee of the commencement and duration of the
terms Of the circuit courts. 40 Ind, 46l; ST
i'd, 22lJ Where n verdict is rendered on the
made on the first day OF the next term Is in time,
under sec. SCI r. S., 1881. There was no error
In the Instructions given. Judgment affirmed.
ERRONEOUS NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
9,5ss, william @. Norton VS.. Thos. NJ. browne.
Bartholomew {. G..
Morris. Con petition for reheAring. Itis
the duty of the eourt to state the law correctly
TO the jury, and if it fails to do so, by an incor-
rect instruction, the injured party, without ask
ing the court to correcu is errors otherwise
than by exception, has his remedy by appeal.
The inst ruction in this case was misleading and
erroneous, and cannot be held to have been
harmless. Rehearing denied.
The following esses were also decided;
Asa Johnson VS.. Samuel Mccullough. Whitley
c. O. Affirmed. Franklin. @.
1 Cty of Lafayette vs. Dundy James Tippeca-
noe &. G. Reversed. BLACK, g,