The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-22
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record Yesterday.
Full Abstract of the Opinions Rendered by
the Judges of tho Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.

Hon. w. Z. Nblack, Chief ustice.
TENANCY-UNLAWFUL HOLDING oYER-INTER-
RoGAToRIES.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS HOLDING oyER-INTER-
RoGAToRIEs
l0616. Edward E Wheeler VS.. Gertrude
Reitz. Vanderburg c. c.
Hammond, jim an action to recover posses
sion OF leased premises unlawfully held by the
tenant after expiration of the lease 1t ls not nee
essary TO charge that the premises were held by
force. The fling of HETEROGENEOUS under sec
tion $50, r. S. 1891, must be made with or after
the filing of the pleading, and not before. The
court cannot. before the filing of the pleading,
know that there is any "matter in controversy"
respecting the points involved in the interroga-
tories. Judgment affirmed.
sHEBIFFs sALE-oFFER OF PARCELS.
9918. John ]. Brake vs. Jane M. BrOwnlee,
Administrative. Vigo s. G,
Howl, AT a sherf's sale on execution,
Brownlee, the Judgment plaintiff, bid in one of
two tracta or land levied on for $500 After
wards the sheriff remembered that he had a
written bid in his pocket for both tracts OF land
and refused TO issue certificate to BPownlee
on the ground thatthe sale to him was a mistake
Held, 1t the duty of The sheriff to sell the NV
tracts separately il he could do ut Ind, 45O;
30 i'd, 332; Al i'd, 49, 80 i'd, 1859 1t was not
shown that the sheriff had any competing bid
which he had forgotten, for the single tract of
land which he offered and sold TO B-Ownlee
The sale to him was therefore legal and valid
Judgment affirmed.
CONTRACTS OF MARRIED woMEH-AoT OF 1879.
9,649. Benjamin Haas vs. Daniel j. Shaw ct
uX. shelby G. Q.
Elliott, Jon petition for rehearing. Stat
utes in derOgation of the common law are to be
strictly construed and the married wOmen's act
of 1879 is in derOgation of the common law. 1t
does not IN terms nor by necessary ntendment
authorize a wife TO enter into partnership with
her husband. Partnership property is not ''soe
and separate" The ownership is - Joint one.
As the act of $40 applies only to the married
woman's separate property we cannot, without
doing violence to its language. hold that it con
fers right to contract in reference TO partner
ship property. The words "sole and separate"
refer to the individual properly of the wife and
not TO property owned by partnership. (COn-
tracts OF married women, l27, NJ The act CON
mo inh m IN In IA
themselves bv an executoFv contract concern
ing partnership property. Petition Overruled.
wIFE's REAL EsTATE-RIaHT TO RENTS.
10,943. Esther A. Bristor, administrator, VS..
Esther A. Brlstor. Marion G. G.
Elliott, i'm lS43 deed was made to the ap-
pellee and her husband for certain real estate,
which was the separate property of appellee.
During his life the husband always spoke of aud
treated tho property as his wife's, He erected
buildings npon 1t, and for q series of years col
lecbed ana appropriated the rents to his own
use. This action was brought by appellee
against the husbands estate to recover the rents
so collected, Since the statute OF 1852 went into
effect, the husband had no right to the rents is
suing from the land. % Ind, 100; IS i'd, 227
43 i'd, $3.50 If the evidence showed that the
wife had asserted claim to tae rents. and that
the husband had retained them over her object
ton, there would be no difficulty in sustaining
the finding in her favor. But if the circumstances
show that the wife did not intend to charge the
husband. and that he did not intend to account,
the courts cannot, after his death, charge his
estate, i76 Ind, l95; II i'd, 459l 1t has long
band, with the knowledge and consent of the
wife. applied the income from her separ-
ate estate to the benefit of the family,
no charge could accrue against him in the alb
sence of an understanding or agreement on his
part to pay her. q p. W, 80; AZ Wis, 549; So
Iowa. ST; 113 Mass, SD This principle applies
to a case like this, where the husband had in the
beginning right to collect and appropriate the
rents; where he was named in the deed as one of
the grantees where he used the money In pro-
viding a dwelling for the wife and family. and
in the maintenance of the family. Prior to the
statute of 1852 the income of this property was
the husbands, and his continuing to collect and
use it subsequent to that tiiue, with his wfes
consent, strongly shows that it was never meant
TO charge him with it. Davis vs. Watts, No.
O,165.I Judgment reversed.