The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-03
SUPREME coURr-FEB. 2.
HUSBAND AND wIFE-PARrNERsHIP-co
ANCE.

1892 william D. Huffman vs. Margaret
COPELAND, MariOnC. c..
Woods, C. J.-Where the court refused to strike
out the answer of a defendant for refusal to ap-
pear and be examined after due notice before
the trial, the record not showing the contrary, 1t
will be presumed that a good excuse for the
Mrs. Copeland were partners in the millinery
business. Mrs. Copeland having put $1,000 OF
her own money into the firm. They took in
Aunan as third partner, the profits to be
shared equally between them. Copeland over
drew his account some $4,000, and 1t was agreed
that his account should he credited, and his
wife's charged with that sum, he agreeing at the
same time to convey the property in controversy
to his wife or their daughter. The deed
was afterward made to the daughter and
this was action by @ creditor of CUpsland's
to set aside the deed as being fraudulent Held:
Though the wife had no power to bind herself 10y
the contract of partnership or to iucur any per
sonal liability, it was competent for the husband
aud other parties To permit her Ia share in the
business, and there is no ground upon which the
individual creditor of the husband can claim
that the transaction worked any legal injury to
him, and when she consented to the charging to
heEaecount of the overdraft of her husband, and
this was doue by the act of the partners, it
afforded sufficient executed consideration for
the contract to convey. Judgment affirmed.
TOWNSHIP Observation-Disclosures OF THE POOR.
1887. Commissioners Vigo county vs.. Fred
erck Fisher. Nigo G. G.
HUwk, J.-This was a claim against the county
by township trustee for special services rem
dered by him aS overseer of the poor from
1874 to 1873. Under the statute IN force during
JhlS time 1t was one or the duties OF township
trustees to act overseer of the poor, and their
compensation must be limited To the per diem
allowed by law. al Ind, 5S0) II the appellee
has any claim for the services specified il must
be paid ont of the township fund, and not by the
county, Judgment reversed.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF STREETS.
10,49S. The State Va. l., N. A. &c c. Railway
Company. Lawrence C. C.
ELLIOTT Under the statute, r. s. 1881, see
ton 1897, a corporation may he indicted for
maintaining public nuisance, and the statute
applies to nulsauces erected prior TO It's ailop-
ton. II afterward maintained. railroad can
not acquire ny prescription right to maintain
nuisance. Is Ind 143: SO H., 1919; II id, 446)
The answer she VS. that the possession and use for
railway purposes of the stresGs under
authority of the Legislature. and what the L-gis-
latnre authorizes cannot be deemed public nui-
sance. (67 Ind 49, While the appellee had
right to Use the streets, it has none to unreas-
onably obsrruct them; hut becalIse the necessa-
ry, careful and reasonable OF them inficts
some temporary Inconvenience, or in some meas
IRE obstructs the free use of The streets, an in
dlctment Will not lie for public nuisance. The
facts stated in the answer snow that the appellee
has not unreasOnably or unnecessarily Obstruct-
ed the public streets, hut has used care to pre-
vent doing So Judgment affirmed.
1O,6O7. The State eX rel. Chopper James
S. Murdoch. LapOrte &. G. collars, j. Affirmed.