The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-15
SUPREME CoURT-FEB. Il.
LEeAL1zING ACT CONSTRUED.


9,961. William Fl. Lucas vs. State ex rel.
WaynetOwn. Montgomery c. G.
Woods, c. 1.-THE act of March -, 1875, to le-
galize the acts of boards of trustees, etc, must
be regarded as retrospective and curative only,
and not as prospective. Judgment affirmed.
INCORPORATED CITIEs-wATER woRKs--wARRANT
l0,2l6 City of Connersville vs. The Corners
Vile Hydraulic Company. Fayette c. C.
Elliott, IA city Incorporated under the gen.
eral laws may be sued upon warrant drawn on
It's treasury by the proper officers and 1t Is not
necessary for the holder to proceed by mandate.
al Ind 2O5; 10 Wall, sos; Burroughs Pub. sec,
b23; % Ind, $50 1t iis not incumbent upon the
holder of such warrant to show that the treas
urer bad funds, or that he indorsed the warrant
mot paid for want of funds" The act of March
%, 1879, providing Cor boards OF water-works,
was intended to take-the control of water-works
IN Cities from the common council and vest it i'll
the board OF trustees, and the latter are the
proper officers to audit, allow and direct pay
ment of elaine for water furnished thrOugh,such
water-works. But this act did not have a
Retrospective effect, and did not apply
to debts contracted by the common
cohnc prior to It's enactment, and such was the
case with the appellee's claim, Judgment af-
tirIned.
PRoMIssoRY NoTE-NEGoTIABILITY
9,Ss6. Smith Cotfiug VS.. James G. Hardy.
Fountain G. c.
HOwk. IA note 'snegotiable and payable at
Farmers Bank, Covington, Ind.," purpOrts on
its face to be payable in bank in this State and
is therefore II Negotiable an inland bill of eX-
change. If in fact the place named was not u
bank within the meaning of th6 statute, the fact
could only be available TO the defendant by
pleading the same In his answer. The indOrsee
of such a note before maturity, aud without no.
tice, takes It free from all defenses existing be-
tween the maker and payee. (JS Ind, $780, SO
id, 536; "a i'd, 177J Judgment affirmed.
INSURANCE POLICY PAYABLE TO wIFE-HUs-
BANDS INTEREST.
1879. George W. Harley, administrator, VS..
Henry Heist Kosciusko C, C.
collars 1.-THE facts are briefly theses In 1S67
Snyder procured a,policy of insurance ON his
life payable to his wife Wilhelmina who died in
1863, leaving her husband and two children, in
1871 snyder assigned his interest in the policy
to appellee, whom he WIS owing. and the latter
thereafter paid the premiums falling due. The
court nllOwe the whole proceeds OF the policy
to appellee. This was wrong. The policy by It's
terms was executed for the benefit Of the wife
and the title vested in her, by gift from her hus-
band, and was her separate property, to be dis
posed OF as her other personal property. That
it, One-third descended to her husband, and the
rest to her minor children, The husband
could assign his One-third in the
policy, and this is all the appellee
obtained by his assignment. (51 Ind, "a; 65 id
345; SO i'd, So; Bliss Life lns., S3lS, 337; 40
Conn ,343 Al Mich, 442; 2 Robt., 155; SO Conn. d,
1872; 27 Mimi, 1881 The appellee having in
good faith paid the premiums since the ASST gn-
ment of the pOlicy,is entitled to have the amount
so paid, with interest, refunded to him. Judg-
ment reversed.
1O,5I9 Commissioners Decatur county VS.
The State ex rel. Hamilton. Decatur c. c. AT
firmed.
Aowk, J.,-woods, c. j., dissenting.