The Indianapolis journal., 1883-03-17
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-Mar :. Is.
Hon. william A. Woods, Chief Justice.
STANDING OF DEFEND

ii on. William A. Woods Chief Justice.
EvIDENcE-PEcUNIAR STANDING OF DEFEND
ANT.
9,90l. John Small VS.. Robert A Smith. Hen
ry T. C.
Howk, J.-where physician sued to recover
for services rendered TO adult danghter of
defendant, no sick at her fathers house,
but had worked out for several years previous
on her own account, 1t was error to admit testl-
mony as to the property owned by defendant
and Its value. Such evidence could only have
been introduced for the purpose of showing that
pay the bill, and the question of his liability
could not be thus determined. Judgment re-
versed.
cITIEs-ANNExATIoN OF TERRITORY.
1892. Noah Catterlin vs. City of Frankfort.
Clinton C. G.
Franklin, C.-This was proceeding by the ap-
pellee TO annex certain territory to It's corporate
limits. The territory was not plated and record
ed and the application was therefore made to
the county commissioners. 1t was proper
for two OF the commissioners to act upon the pc
tition. (R. s. rs, 34S. 1t is not necessary that
each one of the subdivisions OF the territory
sought to be annexed should be contiguous to
the corporate limits OF the city. 1t is sufficient
If one of them be contiguous and the Others be
contiguous to that by being contiguous to each
other. (23 Ind $3.50 The statute does not
prescribe what reasons shall be set forth In the
petition, and their suiciency is left to the sound
discretion OF the authority passing upon them.
The reasons set forth in this petition similar
to those in 20 Ind, 272 and 80 i'd, 51o, which
were held sufficient. There is no error in the in
structons given. The statute requires the
be signed each day by the judge, but if for any
cause the record has not been signed during the
term at which the proceedings were had, it may
be signed afterward (36 Ind, 406; 3S i'd, 522)
And the fact will not affect the validity of the
Judgment. Judgment affirmed.
SUPREME CoURT-MARCH 16
9,346 G. c. Nave VS.. First National Bank.
Boone G. c.
Best, C-where the Endorsement on the
complaint was signed "Cosen & Kelsey, for
plaintiff" and it appeared that these persons
were the plaintiffs attorneys. 1t was sufficient.
Where note is made payable to one as cashier
OF bank the bank may sue as payee (74 Ind,
1885, 81 i'd, 146) Judgment affirmed.
ENDORSEMENT BY AGENT-RATIFIcATioN.
9,764, Patrick ]. Mullaney VS.. First National
Bank. Marion s. G.
Franklin, Cit is well settled that where
motion for new trial is Overruled at a subse-
quent term, bill of exceptions filed within the
time then given does not save the exceptions to
changed by section 626 Revised Statutes 1881.
be indoIsed BY Mullaney 4 Hays in
being made by a brother of Mullaney in
the absence of the firm and without their know
ledge or consent. The maker and all the other
parties had been previously associated in busl-
ness, and there was unsettled claim in favor
of Dennis Mullany (who signed the firm name to
the notes. against the old firm. Dennis was en-
ployed in various ways at the business place of
Mullaney & Hays, collecting money for them,
receiptng for express matter etc, After the
firm learned OF the action of Dennis they did not
take positive steps to dsaffirm his action, and
some ninety days afterward said firm, the maker
Of the note and Dennis, had a settlement of their
old partnership affairs, the firm giving their note
to Dennis for 81 900 for a balance due him. This
evidence sufficient to show a ratification of
the action of Dennis by the firm, even if il be
admitted that Dennis was not originally author
lied as agent to sign the firms name. Judg-
ment affirmed.
sHERIFFs SALES CANNOT BE ADVERTISED IN
SUNDAY PAPERS.
l0.753. Thomas I Shaw VS. .Tohn q WilIiama
Tippecanoe &. G.
Elliott, 1.-THE question presented is whether
sheritfs sales be legally advertised in papers
issued on Sunday. Advertising sales is a part of
the ordinary duties of the sheriff, and he cannot
transact the ordinary business of his office on
Sunday. The publisher of a Sunday paper un-
dertakes to circulate his paper on that day
Subscribers and customers, and 9s the publish
ing of such paper is his vocation it follows that
he engages in 1t when he circuates the paper
owned by him. If sheriff were permitted to
AID In the violation of a statute by employing
the vloatOr to publish legal notices, we shouid
have the singular anomaly of the chief minis
terlal officer of the county eneourag-
is his sworn duty TO enforce. The cases
of 40 III, LAG, and "a N. Y, 353, are de-
cisve of this The printing of such a pa
per Is work that may be done on a day other
than Sunday; but the circulation of the paper
ls a work that IS necessarily done on Sunday, and
TINS Is the most important part of the work
The owner of a Sunday paper is pursuing his or
dinary vocation when he is engaged in circulat-
ing his paper and thus transgresses the law
80; 1S i'd, 169) Judgment reversed.