The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-07
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-April 5.
Hon. William A. Woods, Chief Justice.

Hon. William A. Woods, Chlet JUSTICE
MORTGAGE NOTES = PURCHASE BY WIDOW OF
MAKER.
9,O14 Moses Carithers vs. Martha B. Stuart.
Black, C-where a wife has Joined her husband
IN mortgage of his real estate 10 secure his
notes. and by his death the mort gagged land mas
passed to the widow aud chldren, and she
has purchased ana taken assignments OF some
OF the notes maturing sooner than the Others,
sue may foreclose the mortgage for the pay henJ
OF the notes assigned TO her, aud obtain priority
over the later maturing notes IN the distribution
OF the proceeds. In this case, the wife obtained
the note at the bank where it was payable, and
AFTER 1t had been protested for nOn-payment; and
when she sent the money to paw IL nothing was
SAID TO the bank officers about her purpose to
huy the note and to take an assignment OF 1t to
herself. The note was negotiable, but its dis
the transferrer had. Dan. Neg. Inst,
sec. 7S2; II j. l.. AS; Pon,eroy Eq. Jur., sec.
4o9( tenant IN common who has paid oil u
mortgage on the whole property which he was
not personally bound to pay, is entitled to he
su3rogaLed to the mortgage security. Jones
Mort, S74, 1,063. l,O67, 1,oS6; Pom Eq. Jur.,
1881 But this VIII only be where the wnole
d a has been paid. g Watts. 81; ~ n J;
As the wife had paid but portion of the mort
gage debt in this case. she was not entitled to
subr0gatiOn as against the InOrtgagee, who had
assigned some of the later maturing notes ana
WAS personally liable on his Endorsement to the
holders thereof. Judgment reversed.
RECOVERY OF REAL OVERWHELMING.
$500 Allen Donaldson VS.. John W. Dunn.
Miami G. c.
Franklin, C-Action by appellant to recover
possession of certain land alleging that he had
purchased II of ons Donaldson, who mad
bought IL under n Judgment agnins5 the APP
pellee, and had afterward leased it for two
years 10 appellee. To this the latter answered
that after DOnaldsOns purchase aJ the sherltfS
sale of the land the appellee bought the land Of
suld Donaldson on ten years payments, and was
to have deed upon payment OF all the purchase
money; that he had fully paid che purchase
money, and was entitled TO his 0eed. This was
n good answer to the complaint. Judgment
affirmed
INSANE PERsoNs-CoNTRACTs-
-9,s76 william A. Fullwider VS.. John r.
Ingles Howard G. G.
Bicknel, C.-Contracts Of insane persons not
junicially declared to he such are voidablr, and
may, upon the removal of the disability, or by 4
lawfully appointed guardian, be disaihrmed. Isl
Ind, 433; 72 III, 403l But where such con
tracts have been executed there must ne Il dis
atirmance before suit is brought 10 Ind. 4os;
So i'd, 42D Aud If the parties cannot he
placed III satn quo the Contract cannot
be set aside. ada. Cont, 6th ed, ,O33)
The tenth instruction told the jury that where
Witnesses are of equal capacity, the opinions OF
those wlO have better means OF knowledge are
of greater weight than the opinions OF Those who
have less means. Although this may be true IN
fact, it Is not a presumption of law, and 1t is
error to stale as Il legal proposition, which,
though true III point OF TACT, does not amount 10
IA legal presumption. C16 Ind, ISL; 53 i'd, 420;
sc id, $50; SO i'd, 1907 Judgment reversed.
FELLOW NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
10,491. Amos Rodgers VS.. Robert Overtou.
Washington c. &.
ElliOtt, IA servant may maintain nm action
gaimst 1ellOw-serVant, for injuries received in
the masters service through the latter's neSli-
Gence. los Ind, 12l; GO Id, $40 In this case
both parties were servants of "a railroad com
pany, and the superioT directed the
work to be done in an unusual and
dangerous manner, by means of which
the appellee was injured. The appelle not
guilty of contrbutOry negligence in Oheying the
command of appellant. The latter had full con-
troll of appellee and of the work in which he was
engaged, and it was appellee's duty to obey his
orders. It is not negligence for "a common la
bOrer to obey the directions of one of tho prin-
cipal officers of the company i'll whose employ
he Is. He NAV well presume that an agent of
such RANK has been selected because of his SUI
periOr skill ana knowledge, and that he will daily
exercise such care and skill. The master ia
bound TO employ competent agents, aud ser
want has right to presume that his master
obeys the law. (2S Ind, $50 Judgment af-
Hruipd.