The Indianapolis journal., 1883-06-29
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-June 2S.
Hon. William L. Niblack, Chief Justice.


RAILROAD Observation-Disclosures.
9.3I5. The Pennsylvania Company vs. Juiia
Roney. admiristratrix. Anen c. Q.
Elliott, J.-Action by appellee to recover dam
ages for the death OF John ROney. who was an
engineer and was killed by he train running
into switch negligently left open by those In
charge of the previous train. IL is the dutV OF
engineer to obey the rules prescribed by the
company unless they are abrogated ny the com
act. If he wrengfuly disregards snch rules he
cannot recover for an injury received aithoush
other servants OF the master were more pegn-
gent than he, hut where the orders given Dy MS
superior officers require him TO run in a dlnerent
. manner from that prescribed IN the ruies, ana
other trains are so run with the knowledge or
by direction OF the governing effieers negligence
cannot be imputed TO him. although he does not
follow the general rules An engineer In charge
Of passenger train is not guilty OF neg
ligence because he does not leap from
his ain to escape Impending danger. IL fs weli
settled that employer is liable to his servants
for injuries caused by the negligence OF co-ser-
Wallis. wnen the latter are incompetent and Or
binary care has not been exercised IN selecting
Them pierce. r. r., 374; % Ind. 2Sa Judg-
ment affirmed.
COMMON cARRIER-BILL OF LADTNG
9.542. Wm. b. Hal, execuror. VS.. Tne Penn
sytvania Company. Allen $. C.
Howk, J.-Appellant sued for the nOn-delivery
OF a lot of sugar which the appellee undertook
TO transport from Philadelphia to kendalville,
Ind, but which was destroyed at PittsOurg in a
fire caused by a mob of strikers. The complaint
counted upon an implied contract of the ap-
pel,ee as a common carrier, and sought to re
cover for a breach of its common law duty. No
reference was made to the written contract or
bill of lading executed by the appellee, which
the action must he based anon such con-
tract or it will fail. Q3 Ind, SIS; so i'd, 1885,
Lake Shore Co. VS.. Bennett. this term) Judg-
ment affirmed.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. PREYENTIoN-DAM-
AGES
1927. Leander Ayers, guardian. vs.. Philip
Sitter ct al. Decatur c. c.
Hsmond, J.-Action by appellant as guardian
of Owens, "A persQB of unsound mind to recover
the value OF cal estate conveyed by quit-claim
deed by Owens TO Slifer. Owens an old and
feeble-mInden man, who owned 800 acres of
land, worth $4,000, but whichwas incumbered
ard had been sold on executions against him
blifer, his near neighbor and trusted friend, en-
tered into conspiracy with the other defend
ants to cheat Owens out of his land by prevent
Ing him from redeeRln9 1t from the sheriffs sale.
Slifer proposed 10 buy / so acres OF the land for
enough to pay off the incumhranees, and by col
lusion with the other defendants, kept delaying
the matter from time 10 time until the period for
redemption had expired, and one of them OBJ
tsined sheriffs deed for the land. Slifer then,
by fraud, induced Owens 30 execute the quit
claim deed 10 him. Where oB5 is pre-
vented by fraud from redeemng his
land within the time fixed @ byyo by Law. he
had an equitable right Of redemption before he
executed the deed to Slifer, and this constituted
valuable consideration. The deed was made
pursuant to a verbal contract as to part of the
land. Tne execution of a deed upon an oral
10 takes axe sA s % out 7 e the 20 statute a. o.
S3 id, 463D Appellant is entitiedstO recover on
the conveyance made by Owens TO Slfer the
price OF the land. so far as agreed upon. and the
value of the Residue, less the incumbrances.
Judgment reversed.
BANKRUPTCY = PENDING ACTIONS - DISCHARGE
9,092. Edward b. Bowen Us. Jacob Eichel.
VandrFburg G. G.
Elliott. J.-Where during the pendeney of an
aeIinn the defendant is adiudged a bankrupt. he
must interpOse the proceedingsin in bankruptcy as
y defense to the action in the State court, the
Judgment recovered against him will not be dis
charged by his discharge IN bank
raptcy. l6I Ga. 5S 15 Reporter. 1874;
Bank. Regl 353; 80 Me. 459; 32 id, 2le;
Blkf, I771 When thS debt is put into judg-
ment the claim Ia merged aud the right OF action
bonnd up in the Judgment and the debt then be-
comes subsequent TO the adjudication in bank
ruptoy. and is not embraced in the discharge.
This doctrine of merger extends 80 far as to
merge a Judgment on which an action Ia brought
IN tho last Judgment, ard to destroy all lien OF
the former. 1853 Ind, 443) Much more must
the Judgment have this effect whore IL rests on
an ordinary chose in action. Judgment re-
versed.