The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-13
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record, Yesterday.
FUN Abstract of the Opinions Rendered
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.
Supreme Court-March 10.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. SUBMISSION.

| Supreme Court-March 10.
ARBITRATIoN-PARoL SUBMISSION.
| 9,46s. Presmuel Dilks VS.. Hutson Hammond.
| Clark G. c.
| The only question is whether the evidence
showed submission to arbitration. 1t shows
that the arbitrators selected by the respective
parties met for the purpose of hearing the evil
| dence; that of them suggested that the
award would not be binding unless the parties
entered into writings; that appellee said he
woul0 not go into writings, but they could go
ahead without writings; the arbitrators then
! heard the evidence and made their award in
writing, whereupon appellee complained that
| the finding was too large against him. parol
/ submission is binding unless Internationally re-
9ked before the award a z9 Hna 1 a6
| necessary in the action on the award to
prove That the parties agreed ITO to
1 to submit implies an agreement to abide by the
decision Of the arbitrators (Morse on Arb, 90
The claim having been tried before the arbitra-
| tors, the question whether it was a just and
/ reasonable one could not be considered on the
! trial of the action on the award. Morse Supra,
| 36J Judgment reversed.
DEvIsE-coNDITIoN sUBsEQUENT-DEMAND.
1899. snas FL Cory vs.. Clement R, Cory.
Union G. C.
| Bicl1neiI, C-Jeremiah Cory devised land to
4 his son Moses, on condition that he would main
tain his sister during her life. Afterwards
Moses mortgaged the land to johnson for Dor
rowed money, and at the foreclosure sale bought
the land and assigned the certificate of purchase
| TO the appellee. For some time after the eXecu-
tion of the mortgage said Moses failed TO provide
Tor his sister, whereupon the other heirs OF said
jeremiah took possession of the land,
claiming that the devise to Moses
had failed. Moses held the land upon a condition
subsequent upon breach of which his title
would be defeated and the land would revert to
the heirs of the devisor upon the exercise, by
them of the right Of entry. as Ind 562; 8 Ind,
80; IS H., $50; 81 i'd, 564) But there must be
a demand for the performance of the condition
by the person entitled TO insist upon it, (79
Ind, ASS; II i'd, 434) 1t does not appear that
IN md Nvas ma 10
party interested, either upon Johnson or upon
the appellee, and the demand made upon Moses
was after he had parted with the title. The
purchaser takes the estate subject to the condi-
ton, and the demand must be made upon him be-
fore forfeiture can take place. q Wash, r. p,
3 ed, SEQ. "a; Kent, com. 1863 Nor was there
any entry by the heirs for condition broken.
Judgment affirmed
sHERIFF's FAILURE To LEvY-sPECIAL FIND
INGs.
1859. George Hessong VS.. John 7. Pressy
Franklin, C-where a sheriff holds senior ex-
ecutions sufficient to exhaust the property
Judgment defendant an1T rscovsr ]nor
damages for the failure TO levy his execution
until the defendant has disposed of his property.
sheriff IS returns on an execution are not con-
elusive as to the facts therein contained l42
Ind, 294; AZ i'd, 800. Such returns embodied
in the statement of facts without any finding by
the court to their truth, are not findings of
fact within the meaning of the law go Ind, 1913;
"a i'd 529: sc i'd, 1853. They cannot be consld-
cred under an exception to the conclusions OF
law. Judgment affirmed.
INFANT FEME covERT-DIsAFFTRMANcE OF DEED.
1887. Rosanna Sims VS.. Martha Smith.
Hamilton, G. c.
Morris, C.-Action bv appellant to recover
land conveyed by her in 1874. when she was an
infant feme covert. The case differs from Sims
VS.. BardOner March 81 in that 1t is not alleged
that the grantee of Bardoner had knowledge of
appellants infancy when she made the deed, nor
that when she attained her majority her husband
prohibited her from disaflirmtng her deed. In
ha Ienp nf nnfu nah tnrn
the grantor, the deed of an infant may be dis
affirmed at any time before his right of entry IS
barred by the statute of limitations; and in the
case of a married woman the act Of evidence
may be postponed to reasonable time after her
eoverture is ended. lTyler on Infancy, II;
$50; 102 U. s. 300; 80 Ind. 100) AS appellant has
done nothing to estop her, she is not barred by
the statute of limitations. Snehad right to dis
affirm the deed. The appellee took by his pur-
chase only the title OF his grantor, although he
had no notice of appellants infancy. II her
grantee could by conveying the land to one lg-
nOrant of her disability, defeat her right to dis
affirm the deed, the law could afford no protec-
ton to infants or married women. Judgment
reversed,
DELINQUENT TAXEs-PERSONALITY-L ON
REAL ESTATE.
1856. Lewis A, vogler VS.. Joseph d. sldener.
Bartholomew c. Z.
collars, J.-Action by appellee to enion tho
sale of land for delinquent taxes, The com
plant alleged the sale of the land by appellee
to John Book, on April l, 1877,
ana tnilt ne was atNerNafu compelleu 10
foreclose his mortgage for the purchase money
| on the land and buy it in, the land being worth
less than HIS debt, and Book being insolvent. It
was alleged that the several owners of the land
when the taxes accrued thereon owned personal
property in the county ont of which such taxes
could have been made. II these successl We
owners of the land had, at the time this suit was
commenced, personal property in the county
sullie to pay the taxes due from them sever
ally, and the treasurer by reasonable diligence
could have levied upon it. the real estate could
not be sold until such personal property was ex-
hausted, t53 Ind, 1876; 81 i'd 1851 The neg
lect of the treasurer, however. to levy on and
sell such personal property until the person
against whom the taxes assessed
has ceased to own personal property in the
county. will not cause the lien of the tax upon
the land TO be lost (76 Ind. g. 1909 In such
o case as this the complaint should state the
specific kinds of personal property owned by the
parties. III it consisted of live stock, grain
farming utensils, household goods, money. etc.
| it should he 80 stated. The complaint did not
show the nature OF the property, nor that the
persons who owed the taxes owned personal
property in the county at the time the suit was
commenced. The motion to require the com
plant TO be made more specific shoald have been
Sustained. Judgment reversed.
Superior Court