The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-11
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-Oct. 10.
W. f. Niblack, Chief Justice
PRoM1ssoRY OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.

PROMIssORY OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
10,980. Harry Whitcomb VS.. William Miller.
Shelby c. c.
Elliott, J.-Aetion by appellee on a note. An
swer that appellant signed the note surety for
Nleh0is, the MAKER upon an agreement WIN nun
mat Elliott was also TO sign 1t as surety. ana
that he delivered the note to the appellee with
out Elliotts having signed it. Where note is
perfect on It's face, and contains no indications
That 1t delivered in violation of an agreement,
and 1t Is taken in good faith for a valuable con
sderatiOn, the taker will not be- affected by any
agreement between the principal and surety, Of
which he has no notice. ga Ind, 4Sl; 70 Id,
514 70 i'd, 329) In this the note was per
fect In all respects, and there nothing TO in
dictate that the contract which the surety had
placed in possession of the principal WAS not
complete in every particular. Judgment af
hrmed.
sERVICEs-IMPLIED oONTRACT PLEADING.
1O,63O, Matthew j. Geraru VS.. Charles Ii. Dill.
montgomery c. c.
collars, J.-Appellee's complaint alleged that
between 1866 and 1881 he had performed labor
for appellant, at his request, Answer that in
1866 appelee was child OF four years of age,
having been abandoned by his parents, and that
as an act OF charity, and without any contract
Whatever; appellant took, iSed, educated and
provided for him one of his own family, set
asking that they be set off against the claim of
appellee Held: The complaint states facJs
from which the law implies promise to pay
reasonable compensation for the labor, The
statement in the ans weF, 'without any contract
whatever" applies only TO the acts performed
by appellant ana not to the labor by appellee.
Appellant might perform the offices stated for
the appellee without pay and still remain liable
on the Implied promise to pay appellee for his
labor. Having done what he did for appellee
charity, appellant cannot now be heard to set
them up as a bar TO his claim for labor. Judg-
ment affirmed.
FALSE PRETENsEs-sTATUTE REPEALED.
10,4l9 Jacob Wagner vs. the State Wabash
Howk, J-section 27 of the felony act of June
10, 1852 defining false pretenses was repealed
by Implication bv section 2,204 of Revised
Statutes, In which the words 'Or any false pre-
! n cd IN Ir1iE in -
case was bad for failure to aver that the fraudu-
lent order was delivered TO Lynn and Morrison, or
that it was received by them in payment for the
goods obtained III Ind, 49l; IL i'd, 500; 80
Id, ABB Judgment reversed
NONRESIDENT TRUsTBEs-ACT OF 1879 CON
sTRUED.
10,947 Caleb P. Rlnker vs. George P. Bissell.
Niblack, q. i'm 1877 Bissen as trustee, took
mortgage from Desohler TO secure the payment
of four coupon bands, which passed into the
hands of nOn-residents, whose names were un-
known. Upon default Bissell sued in his own
name to fOrecOse the mortgage, and on July 10,
1879, bought in the mortgaged property at the
sherifs sale IN his own name. as trustee. The
act of March %, 1879, which went into effect on
May 81, 1879, has no retrospective effect. (S5
Ind, 414) Bissell was therefore stil trustee
under the trust deed at the time of the sherlffs
sale, and by his purchase of the lot at that sale
he was, by operation OF law, continued In his
former position as such trustee. The
inhibition against the appointment of
nonresident trustees extends only to such
appointments as made by some deed, mort
gage or other instrument in writing, and has
application in cases in which persons become or
are continued trustees by operation of law
merely. After his purchase at sheritFs sale the
trust relations of Bissel to the lot continued
the same they before the foreclosure.
except that Dtschler's equity barred. BY
the mortgage Bissell was made the trustee of an
express trust, and could sue forecose it with
out joint Q with him the cestui que trust. AZ
Ind, l; 81 id, 1881 Judgment affirmed.
PERJURY-oPINION OF WITNESS
11,097 The State vs. VIM. Henderson. Nor
gan 9. G,
Hammond, J.-Indictment for perjnry eharg-
ing that the appellee had sworn falsely before
the grand jury that certain persons had not ''uu-
lawfully sold or gwen TO him any Intoxicating
liquors." The most hat is charged is that he
felOniously and falsely swore that the sales and
gifts alleged to have been made to HIM were not
unlawfully made. 1t Is not competent for she
grand jury to take the OPINION of witness
under oath to the legal effect of facts about
which he is required to testify. Such
opinion is irrelevant and immaterial and can
not be made the basis tor charge of perjury.
Where a witness is called to testify solely in
reference TO facts, and where it is not case
calling for expert evidence to questions of law,
the Witness cannot be guilty of perjury in giving,
voluntarily otherwise, an opinion upon "A
point OF law, mr. concerning the legal conse-
quences of an admitted or disputed fact. The
iHdiotm ent was bad. Judgment affirmed.