The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-19
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-March 10.
Hon. William A. Woods, Chief Justice.
BILL OF EXPERIMENTATION.

Hon. William A. Woods, Chief Justice.
BILL OF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
10000. John s. Creager VS.. Mary J. Langford,
Vigo c. c.
was overruled. no entry was made that an eK-
ceptiOn was taken, but time given to Tile a
bill, and tie bill was filed within the time which,
after reclting the evidence and instructions OF
the court, contains this statement: "Whereupon
the defendant moved the court for a new trial,
and, when the same was Overruled, the Judg-
men heretofore set out in the record was rem
dered, aud the defendant excepted" This is the
only statement in the record that any exception
was taken, and it does not show whether the ex-
ceptiOn was TO the ruling on the motion for
new trial or to the Judgment. In order TO pred-
cate an error On ruling. it must aiiirmauyey
appear that an exception was taken TO sncn
ruling, and as this does not appear, the record
presents no question. Judgment affirmed.
PRAcTIcE-CoMPLAINT FOR POSSESSION OF LAND.
9,341. Riley Miller VS.. Henry Shrner. Union
c. &.
Bicknell, c. Where the clerks certificate
shows that the transcript contains complete
copies or all the papers and entries in the case,
there Is no ground for dismissal of the appeal
The Transcript, II defective might have been cor
rected by certiorari Code sec. $50; Busk Prac,
303) A complaint to recover possession of real
estate Is Insufficient II IL fails TO aver that the
plaintiff is entitled to possession. An allie CATION
OF ownership in fee is not sufficient. (57 Ind,
1861 Judgment reversed.
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY APPOINTMENT OF
SPECIAL JUDGE.
Osof0. hlilldn DONtuS W. marIud n. bTleT GU
al. Warren c. G.
Black, C.In actions Originatin g before a Justice
or the peace IL is the amount in controversy In
this court that determines the jurisdiction. QS
Ind, Sc; OIL id, A. But where the appellee re-
covered $40, aud the appellant had filed a
eounter-caim demanding judgment in his
favor for 500, the amount III controversy
must he deemed to be $50. (55 Ind, 235; 81 id.,
266 70 i'd, 559.) Section Of the act of March
1, 1855, authorizing the appointment OF spe-
elal Judge when, for any cause, tue regular
judge cannot he present and preside III the court,
was not repealed ny The legislation of SS1. The
law does not favor repeats by implication, and
two acts in seeming conflict must be recOnciled,
SO that both may stand, If this can be done by
any far construction. III there is but partial
repugnance. then there is a repeal of the earlier
by the later statute ouly TO the extent OF the
repugnance. tBlsnop Writ. Il, sec. 1873; Al Ind,
1881 portion of the subject matter of said
section Is not covered by the code of 1881 to
amy greater extent than it was by section 8 of
Chopper VS.. Murdoch (this term) it was decided
that said section was not repealed Us the act Of
1877. Judgment affirmed.
APPEAL-REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
1o,050. State rel Colt VS.. Lafayette Ma
uonal Bank. Tippecanoe G. e.
Morris, C-This was proceeding for a man
date 10 compel the appellee transfer four
shares OF its capital stock TO appellant, he hav-
ing bought the same at sheritFs sale exc
cutlOn against Simpson, the former owner. The
bank answered that one Rogers claimed to have
bought the stock from Simpson prior to tine sale
on execution, and asked that Rogers he made
party and lie and appellant compelled 10 lifigate
the question. This was done, and the court rem
dered judgment that Rogers was tine owner of
the srOck. 1t 10 obvious that the real contest
ants are appellant; and Rogers, and this court
cannot decide the question between them on
appeal to which Rogers was not made party,
as lie has not been in this the jude ment
between him and tue appellant cannot be- DIS
5urbed, nor can this court, III the absence of
Rogers determine whether or not the court be-
low erred IN overrullng the motion for new
trial. AS long MS the Judgment in favor of
Rogers stands, the bank should not be required
to transfer tile STOCK 10 appellant. Judgment
affirmed
OBJECTIONS TO EvIDENcE-AGENT's AUTHORITY.
10,2SI Joseph Shackman VS.. Sarah Little.
Lagrange c. c.
Franklin C-Ohiections to the admissibility OF
evidence, without any reason for the objection
being given, are unaVailing. Where the aut hor-
iry of an agent extended To getting immediate
possession OF a store-room, and the principal and
agent understood that IA bonus would nave 10 De
paid in order to get such Immediate possession,
the agent had authority to contract to pay such
bonus. Judgment affirmed.
PRACTIoE-INCo MPLETE ACCORD AND sATIsFAc-
TIoN.
10,O65. William Jackson VS.. Charles Olmstead.
Woods, c. J.--Where the record shows that the
original entry of "a judi gment was put in evidence
it will be presumed that the date OF the rendi-
tiOn of the judgment was before the trial court,
although the bill of exceptions fails to show the
date. ~ Where "a judgmenG defendant agreed,
in COMPROMISE of the judgment, to pay
a certain sum 70 each of the Joint Judgment cred
tors and paid the sum agreed upon To one, but
paid only part of such sum to the other, the ac-
cord TO the entire Judgment faileti. An accord
will not constitute II bar unless shown TO nave
been fully executed. q Bkf 5S2; Ind los;
/ 8 id. 274 80 i'd 514). Upon the failure of the
defendant pay the sums stipulated, the REM
edy of the creditors WAS not an action for the
sums agreed To be paid, but they were RENTED
To their original rights under the Judgment. as If
tne accord had never been agreed upon, simply
giving this defendant credit for the sums paid.
Judgment affirmed.