The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-31
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 20.
Hon. William A. Woods, Chief Justice.
EXEMPTIoN-DURDEN OF PROOF

| Hon. William A. Woods, Chief Justice.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF PROOF.
/ 1884. Jane Thompson VS.. Benjamin F. Ross
| White c. c.
Best, C.-Where JUDGMENT defendant claims
| property levied upon as exempt from execution,
the burden is upon him to show that the jud&-
| lnent upon which the execution issued was rem
! defed for deOt growing out OF a contract eX-
press or implied. 90 Ind, 1876; II i'd, 62J Inc
evidence was silent on this point, and also Ialled
TO show that the appellant was the owner of the
| property replevied by her. Judgment affirmed
REFORMATION OF OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
1Ol12. Max. Schultz VS.. Catherine Keener
Dearborn @. G.
| Morris, C.-Where, in the conveyance of land,
! it was the mutual intention of the parties to re-
serve right of private way along the south line
| or the land conveyed, but by mistake
the way was named as running along the
| east line, and the grantors occupied
and used the reserved way on the south line for
| years, with the knowledge and without objection
| from the grantees. before the mistake was dis
covered, the facts such as to excuse them
from active efforts to discover the error, and the
| delay did not preclude the grantors from having
the deed reformed SO as to conform to tile lnten-
! ton OF the parties. Nor did the failure OF the
grantors to require the deed to be read to them
| 10y the scrivener after it written constitute
such negligence their part as would neeessa-
| rly preclude the relief asked for Judgment
| affirmed
RECOVERY OF REAL EsTATE-DAMAGEs.
| 10.33O. James Cooper VS.. Rebecca Robertson.
Dearborn G. c.
| Best, C.-Action by appellee to recover poses
| sion of leased premises and for rent due. Tie
lease was from March to Sept l, 1881. 1t was
Sept l, 1882. This evidenee was
the damages for the detention of the property
| after Sept. L, 1881. the evidence was conflict
| ing, but was sufficient to support the verdict.
The damages were not excessive, and the in-
| struetiOns of the court were correct. Where the
| court has made Il general order that the sheriH
| take jurors at meal times In body TO their
meals, special order to that effect is not neces-
sary in each particular cast. Judgment al
| trmed.
PLEADING STRUCK oUT-BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
| 10,241. M0rdeeai Peck vs. Commissioners of
| Tippecanoe county. Tippeeanoe q. c.
HOwk, J.-Appellant presented an itemized
| account for commissions claimed on divers sums
of money other than taxes paid to him as county
| treasurer. On appeal to the Circuit Court the
appellees motion to strike ont each OF the items
OF appellants account was sustained, and each
| of the items were struck out Thereafter these
! items constituted no part Of APP
| pellanGs claim or cause OF action,
and they conld not be brought
back into the record except by bill Of exceptions
order OF the court. (65 Ind, 30S; 20 Ill, 29SJ
AS they were not thus made part OF the record,
no question as TO their validity Is presented.
Judgment affirmed.
PRACTICE IN CHANCERY CAsEs-CoURT AND
JURY.
9,862. James Evans VS.. James Meals. Boone
Franklin, C-This was a proceeding by the
appellee i'll the nature of creditors bill to
charge certain lands with the lien of Judgment
against appellant. The question presented is in
relation 10 the practice III cIancery causes under
sec. 400, r. s, 1881. Tho court called II jury to
try the questions of fact, and upon the return by
! IL of special verdict the court made new find
, ings for itself, embracing part of the special
findings of the jury and emitting some OF them,
and stating additional facts, upon which
aud the information furnished by the spe-
! cial verdict, the court rendered Judgment
for the plaintiff. There was no error in so doing.
The section OF the statute referred to makes no
/ of
| equitable jurisdiction 10y jury, but 1t
provides thai the court, FOR lis intor;;
nation, may submit facts TO be tried
| by jury, and in such cases the verdict is only
informatory, ana does not bind the conscience
| or control the judgment OF the court. 20 WAL,
go, 40 Wis, l2l; 40 id, 219 2 Otto, 6SI;
| d aniels Oh. Prac., LAS, note; Hendricks VS.
Frank, No. 9,843. this ternn) The special YER
dict being merely advisory and not conclusive,
! it is immaterial whether or not it was sufficient
| ly fun definite and certain To authorize judg
ment to be rendered upon it. Judgment af-
| tirmed.
BANK CERTIFICATE OF DEPosIT-NEGoTIABILTTY.
lO,2IS. VIM. NJ Gregg VS.. Union County Ma
tional Bank. Union c. c.
Black, C.-Action by appellant on a certificate
without notice SIX Years after lts Is
suauce by the bank. Tho certificate
had in fact been PAID to the
depositors after its date, but the certificate
was not taken up. The instrument is 10 he re-
garded as promissOry note. (2l Ind, 433; 81
| i'd 1881 But whether negotiable by the law
merchant NOT, need not be decided, for ii it
should be so held 1t must be regarded rs paper
dishonOIed by lapse of time. A banks etrtiti-
cate of deposit, not bearing interest and payable
| upon its return, cannot be regarded as II cOutin-
ung negotiable security so as to prevent the
letting in of equities in favor of the original par
ties, unless presented within a reasonable time.
(See Morse on Banks, So: 81 Ill 1877; Il. s., 1881,
| sec 5,506. Judgment affirmed.
CHANGE OF vENUE-PREJUDICE OF JUDGE.
( s,647. Ezra Hays VS.. VIM. Morgan. Dearborn
c. g.
| Franklin C.-Pettion for rehearing. The fair
| construction of the alfidavits for change of
| venue leads to the inference that If the ruling
| specified therein had not been made against the
| defendant no motion would have been made for y
| change of trial from the judge. The mere ruling
| OF he judge upon legal question: winch is pre-
| sumed tn be right, the contrary not appeariEg =,
| cannot be IA sufficient cause for charging bias
and prejudice on the part of the judge. Petition
| overruled.