The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-05-11
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-Mny 10.
OF TEsrAroR.

9,696. Anytime Hollowen vs. Drus'lla HOl-
lowell. Huntington G. @.
Black, C-'rhe mere fact that the signature Of
the testator to will followed the atrestation
clause does not make the will invalid. 1t is
necessary that lie should sign before the wit
nesses arrested and subscribed. but 1t is no1
necessary, though more orderly, thaJ-an attesta-
and that OF the Witnesses, or thar there should
be any attestation clause. 40 Ind, 166; 81 i'd,
IL Judgment affirmed.
REVOKED NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. MONEY PAID.
$3.50 Commissioners of Monroe County VS..
August Kreuger. Monroe c. G.
Morris, C-The question presented Is whether
u county is legally bound TO "A licensed retailer
of liquor, his license having been revoked upon
appeal, for such part OF the fee paid by him AS
is represented by the unexpired term for
which the license was granted.
The appellee must be- held to have
paid the money Voluntarily and without legal
compulson. He had tile option OF paying hs
money upon the order of the board, or waiting
until the INSTRUMENTATION ON appeal. He must
be held TO have acted in view of the right OF the
renoustrants to appeal, and with reference 20
the results that might follow. He knew that in
making the order the board was acting iudeially
aud had no power TO create any obligation that
would bind the county. If the benefits received
bis misfortune. al Ind, 312; 46 i'd, 552; 81
i'd. 2e4; 81 i'd, 49, Judgment reversed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF BRIEF.
1873, City of Anderson VS.. Abner II. Neal
Madison C. G.
Howk, IA brief which urges that n part of
the damages recovered in the action TOO re-
mote, but does not point ont what part is meant.
and that the Instructions given din not present
tho law az settled by repeated decisions of this
court, without citing any such decision. does
not comply with the requirements of the court
1856; so i'd, 266; So id, 81 Judgment affirmed.
INToXIcATToN--PUBLIo PLACE.
1884. The State VS.. VIM. Welsh Monroe
&C.
collars, jim an Indictment for being found
1ntoxicated in u public place 1t is necessary that
the indictment should, with reasonable
certainty, describe the place where the accused
found so that the court may see that such
place Is a public place within the meaning of the
stature, t52 Ind. 311, 491.) The allegation
that the accused was found sin "A certain public
place" Is not sufficient. Judgment affirmed.
DEcEBENg's EsTATEs-sTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
1O.366. Michael zeller VS.. Ephralm Griffith.
Elliott, IA claim against dsoeudent's
estate Tor a, money paid on an ex,
after the lapse of seven years after payment.
The defense of the statute of limitations in such
q case is available without being specially
pleaded. (R. s., ,324; 80 Ind, 53I) On a mo-
ton for new trial for newly discovered evil
deBoe 1t is proper TO file counter aiiidavits upon
the question OF diligence. q Graham & Nat
New Trials, 1,o69l Judgment affirmed.
AMENDED Observation-Disclosures
10000. State, ex rel. Bunnell, va. James Hay
White G. c.
Franklin, o.--where amended pleadings are
flied in case, all the former pleadings are super
seded and excluded from the record, and bill of
exceptions will not bring forward the rulings
upon motions in relation TO tho former peadings
and make them applicab BILE to those subsequently
filed. Judgment affirmed.
wIFE's INTEREST IN LAND--ACr OF 1875
e,e95. Daniel Summit We. Mary Elicit. Mon
roe G. G..
Bicknell, C.-The complaint of appellant al
legged that In 1877 he mOrtgaged certain land to
the appellee, his wife not joining in the mort
gage; that the mortgage was foreclOsed against
the appellant only aud before the expiration of
the year for redemption his wife died; that by
virtue OF these facts, appellant had become the
owner OF his wife's third in the land. 1t Is
claimed by appellee that as the wife died before
the year for redemption had expired her in.
ch0ate interest never became cOusummate. But
under the provisions of the net of 1875 only two
thirds OF the land were auld at the judicial SALE
1856 Ind, 5050 The wlfe's third does not be-
come an absolute interest In her until her hus-
bands legal title has become vested in the pur-
chaser by the sherif's deed. but then her
title relates back to the day of sale.
go Ind, Pa; so Id, 1851 Appellants wife
therefore became the owner on the DAY of the
sale of One-third OF the land, and when she died
that third descended to her husband by virtue
of section of said act OF 1879. Judgment re-
versed.
The following eases were also decided:
1O,516. Moore VS.. CottiHgham. Hamilton
c. C. Reversed. Best, C.
$3.50. Sfraughan VS.. White. Hendricks O. O.
Reversed. Morris, @.
1880. Lee TenpletOn. Hamilton C. c.
Affirmed eonditionally. Bicknen, C.