The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-23
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record Yesterday
Full Abstract of the Opinions Rendered by
the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts,
Supreme COurt-Nov, 22.

contrary to the evidence 90 Ind, SIT; To i'd, 20;
81 i'd 1879 An exception To the conclusions OF
law does not cut oil a motion for new trial. Ii
the finding is against the evidence, notwith-
standing such exceptions, the party is entitled
to contest the correctness of the finding OF facts
by motion for new trial (ol Ind. l,572; "a
Id, 10J Where the special finding is filed ut one
term and the conclusions of law announced at
the next term and Judgment rendered, the mo-
ton for new trial must be filed at the term at
which the finding was made, t55 Ind, 1914; 81
id, 343; 80 id 573; Sc i'd. ST; SO i'll, 401l Where
the owner of notes, with full knowledge of the
facts, represents to one about to purchase them
that the notes are secured by first mortgage
on land, he cannot afterward be heard to aver
the contrary. And the fact that the prior mort
gage on the land was of record does not change
the rule III one makes an express statement
that there ia no mortgage on the land IN which
he endeavors to sell an interest," he is bound, al
though an examination OF the record would
have disclosed the existence OF prior mortgage
| t65 Ind, 5910 Judgment affirmed,
PRAcTIcE-APPEALs BY STATE
| 1920 The State vs.. Fred G. Hallowel
! Clinton C. C.
| Hammond, lin an appeal by thestate under
| Sec. 1883, r. s., the record must contain the
| verdict ami Judgment of acqulttal or the appeal
will present no question for the consideration Of
| this court Appeal not sustained.
| OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES ADJUDICATION.
! 1o,4ls. Andrew j. Piper VS.. Daniel Force.
| Howk, J.-To an action by the appellee to fore
! close mortgage appellants answered that the
1 mortgage was made by Kupfer to Muskimius,
and by him assigned TO appellee; that Kupfer
| afterwards brought suit TO quiet his title to the
land, alleging that appellee claimed an interest
in it; that his title was quieted, but afterwards
| appellee obtained review of the Judgment
kmpfer being the sole defendant to said
to the supreme Court; that, after
the jqdsmen5 quieting Kupfer's title
| appellants bought the land In good faith belev-
ing that Kupfer had good title, and paid full
value therefore; That afterwards appellee
brough hit his action TO review SAID Judgment.
| Held: The action to foreclose and the action
| mentioned in said answer not fer the same
| cause, nor between the same parties Nor is it
| shown that appellants we're not mere V0luu-
| teersi in making the purchase. Judgment at
| hrmed.
| Observation-Disclosures
1867, Charles W. Patterson vs.. ex REL,
| Angelina Day. Marion c. G.
Best, C.-The statute which provides that no
prosecution for bastardy shall be instituted
! after two years from the birth of the child APP
plies to the institution OF proceedings before the
| the justice. and not to such proceedings az may
be necessary to arrest defendan who has es-
capped after the COMP eneement of the suit Tho
fact that the defendant was not arrested for
more than two years after the birth OF the child
furnishes no obstacle to the ma intenanee of the
action. Judgment affirmed.
MARRIED woMAN's CONTRACT
1882, Mary Hogan ys. George Guyton,
Colerick, C.-Appellee's complaint alleged
that appellant. married woman, was the owner
in her own right Of farm, and had employed
appellee to work thereon for S15 month: that
he did so work for year, and asked that the
sum due him be made a charge on her separate
which were more than sufficient TO pay his
claim, and alleging, also that the wife owned
valuable er0ps then growing on the farm. Under
the act of 1858, which governs this CASE it has
been held by all the recent eases that married
yoia9 can only Nv ~, her separate estate in
deed in which her husband joins. rs InUi ,js.Uj. /
90 i'd, SO; 81 i'd, Az 81 i'd, AIS; 80 i'd Alb, 566;
SO d. $40; 10 Id, 259) Under the law as thus
settled the cOmplaug stated no cause of action.
Judgment reversed.
RAILWAY - oBsTRUCTGNG HIGHWAY - NEGLI-
GENCE.
1o,77s. c., c., c. & 1. Railroad Company vs.
HarrietG Wynant. Madison c. c.
Franklin. G.-ApPellanrs switch en-. crossed
and across the highway with
a space of from twelve to twenty feet between
them. While appellee was driving on the high
way between the cars her team took fright and
ran away, causing her serious injuries. Section
2.l70, r. s., fOrblds the obstruction of highways
by railroads, and requires them, when stopping
across highway, to leave space OF sixty feet |
between the cars. In case like this the com
pany is liable. t34 Am. R., 62S, 66S; 80 Ind,
l47: 8. q Z. Neg, see. 3Ss; Yates A. d. D.,
3O6l The complaint AYERS that the company
placed the cars RcFOss the highway and negll-
gently left them in that position. PhIs was d
sufficient charge of negligence. (5I Ind, $50;
AZ i'd, AL; 50 ia, lab; AZ i'd. 4769 There was
no direct evidence as TO the ownership of the
fendants being the owner 1t was treated
admitted fact. There was sufficient evidence
upon this point to justify the jury Ia finding that
the appellant was the owner. t6l Ind 303; 65
i'd, 92l Judgment affirmed
INSTRUMENTATION OF FACT PROVED.
1854. Lake Erie q W. R. W. Co. vs.. VIM. r.
Bicknel c. C.-Action for the vaine of
mare killed by the cars The following
question T tho asked Witness &o state
knocked off the railroad, fifty yards east of
the hlghway crossing, there where you found
her, there was any obstruction to prevent an
animal from going on three legs around to that |
poInt?" This question was improper. because 1t
assumed that the ANNA was struck by some
rt of llR al II ms.
ton in the case. Il Green. Ev, sec 13l; |
wend., 248; 33 Ind, 1886; 81 ID, 1873 as i'd,
445) As the evidence WAS conflicting 1t eaunot
be said that the question was harmless. Judg-
meat reversed.
SUITS BETWEEN HEIRs-CoNTRAcT-wITN
10,S30. Dedrick Cramer vs. Caroline STRIP. !
Franklin. O.-Appellant and appellee are |
brother and sister. In his lifetime their father !
decided to appellant certain land, APPELLANT agree |
ing 10 pay appellee 500 after his fathers death.
Held: In suit by appellee to recover the !
money due, that the claim was not one growing |
out OF heirshlp, and that section 499, r. s., does
not apply. The money was not claimed as heir |
or deyisee. but by grant. and did nof affect the !
ancestors estate. Appellee was conpe'
Also that after appellee had notified appel |
laut of her acceptance of the contract
she acquired a personal interest in tho con-
tract which could not he affected by any subse-
quent change therein made without her knowl-
edge or consent. Judgment affirmed.
The following cases we're also decided, of !
which abstracts Will appear hereafter
Chas ". Caffyn rel RAIDER. Fulton G. |
c. Affirmed. Bicknell, c. G.
Commissioners Green County VS.. Thompson !
HUFF. Greene C. c. Affirmed. Franklin. G.
Isaac Jones, administrator, vs. Isaac Jones !
Montgomery c. c. Reversed. Bicknell, G. c.
VIM H. Stanley vs. Northwestern Mutual Life /
Insurance Company. Cass c. c. Affirmed. !
Best, C..
Ex rel. Ault VS.. John Long. Upton c. c. AT |
firned. Black, C.
Superior Court.
Room No Hon. Napoleon 3. Taylor, IuIgq.
James W. H Crabtree Henry c. Long ac-
count, Trial by court. and jud gmrnt against dc
PENDANT for SlS
Thomas Moekfnrd Va. VIM. f. Stilz ct al; suit |
Co enforce mechanics lien. Trial by court, and !
finding for defendants.
John c. S. Harmson. receiver. vs.. Hecla Con |