The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-09
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-March s.
RErLEYIN-pLEApINe-.'TEsTIMoNY."

Observation-Disclosures TESTIMONY
1852. William Ingel vs. Susan Scott. Miami
Z. q.
Howk, J.-suit by appellee to recover posses
sion of Uwo-ffths OF crop of wheat raised by
appellant on land rented OF the appellee. IL is
urged by appellant that he and appelle were
would not lie. The fact of joint ownership dld
not appear from the face of the complaint. She
did not sue for an individual interest in tho
wheat, but for "a specific share. The complain
was, therefore, sufficient. (67 Ind, 579D Tic
word Testimony" in bill of exceptions ls not
the equivalent of the word "evidenee," aud Is
not sufficient to show that iG WAS all the evil
dence given in the (6l Ind, 279; 81 i'd,
4OSl. Judgment affirmed.
EvIDENCE-GooD CHARACTER OF WITNESS.
9,e63. Hannah Brown VS.. Mary Campbell.
Rush c. c.
Franklin CA witness whose general charac-
ter has not been impeached, and whose testi-
mony has only been contradicted by other wit
nesses, cannot prove his general good character,
ana the introduction of such testimony Is good
cause for reversing the judgment. (2l Ind, 10;
n i'd, 274; 81 i'd, 1921 Judgement reversed.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. FIRES.
9,9s4 P, C. q st. L. Railway Company VS..
Levi M Jones. Wayne c. @.
Niblack J-Anowing eombustible material to
accumulate upon and beside railroad track
where there is nothing to prevent the spread of
fire TO the lands of adjoining owners,is fact from
which jury may fluid negligence, and i'll such
case the failure OF an adjoining proprietor to
remove dry grass or stubble from his own land
IN Ofuer TO prevent the spread OF nre neEn2entlY
set by the railway company is not contributOry
negligence on his part. GIG Wis, 223 40 N. Y,
42O) The right of way granted to railroad COM
panies is exclusive, and the owner of the SER
Went estate has no right to enter for the pur-
pose of removing dry grass, etc, nor Is he guilty
OF eontributory negligence in failing TO do so.
70 Ind, III; L Thomp. Neg, 1871 Judgment
affirmed.
DEED UPON CONDITION NOTICE.
9,l0s. Leroy Wilson VS.. volney Wilson, Della
ware Q ..
Woods, c. J.-Appeee's complaint alleged
that IN 1875 he conveyed TO appellant certain
real estate, no valuable consideration being paid
therefor, bur at the same time appellant exc
cuted writing whereby he promised not to
make any changes III the property, nor sell i6
without appellee's consent, etc; that in 1876
appellant conveyed the property to one Orr,
VINO recOnNeyed IL 20 appellants wlIe, ooth con
veyances being without any consideration. The
conveyance by appellee to his son was upon
condition that ne comply with the cove
nants of his agreement. The fact that the cove
nants were personal merely does not change the
rule. "a Ind 62S; 63 i'd, 45l 40 i'd, SOP; 90 i'd,
SOD A breach of the conditions forfeited the
estate. Appellants wife being a mere vOlun-
teer it was not necessary to show that she had
actual notice of the defeasanee. Section II of
the act concerning conveyances (R. s. 2,932) does
not apply to volunteers so as to protect them
as against the rightful owner. IA Ind, 1919 The
act making husband and wire competent wit
nesses for or agai INST each other applies TO oc-
eurrences before as well AS after its passage.
Judgment affirmed.
MISUNDERSTANDING.
1921. Richard Means VS.. John l.. Means.
Shelby G. c.
Best, C.-Th complaint of the appellee
alleged the purchase of mare from appellant
for 1928, which was warranted sound; that in
fact she was incurably dseased-had the lung
fever, and soon thereafter died. 1t is objected
that IL is not alleged that the mare dled from
the disease with which she was affected when
purchased. This was not essential 10 a recovery.
II she diseased there breach of the
warranty, whether she died from such disease
or not. Where 1t is sought TO affirm the con-
tract demand is necessary, nor is the plaintiff
required to inform the defendant that there has
heen breach of the warranty. Judgment
affirmed.
EXEMPTIoN-RESIDENT HoUsEHoLDERs.
1901. LOttie Lowry vs. Andrew McCalister.