The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-07
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-Nov. 6.

Hon. w. L. Niblack, Chief Justice.
EXECUTORS REPORT APPEAL INSTRUCTIONS
1928. Mary a. Taylor VS.. Nathan H. Burk
Fayette @. @.
Howk, Jan appeal lies from the Judgment
of Circuit Court approving the final report of
an executor, although there is order dis
charging the executor from his trust. (67 Ind,
289; II i'd, 347; 81 id., 212.l Appellant except
ing to the final report or executor, alleged
that he had failed to discharge himself with
money, notes, accounts and other property of
the testatOr, several different items of property
being specitied, among which was a certain note
executed by the executor to the testator The
court charged the jury that if the testatOr made
gift OF this note or any part of it to the exc
cutor they should find for the executor. Tue
limiting of the attention of the jury thus to only
one of the specifications was calculated to mis-
lead and confuse them. (64 Ind, 1861 Judgment
reversed.
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE-APPEAL.
1929. John P. Frenzel vs. Daniel NJ Brad
bury. Marion c. o.
Hammond, J.-Action by appellee for services
in and about the purchase of certain real estate.
The only question is to the sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain the finding. There
was no evidence except that of the parties
themselves, and this was conflicting, but that
of the appellee made out his case fully. In such
cases this court will not weigh the evidence, Il
Works Prac, sec. 914) Judgment affirmed.
RETIRING PARTNER-PUBLIc NOTICE.
1910 George strecker VS.. Jesse Conn. Pu-
laski c. c.
Elliott, J.-If one knowingly permits himself
to be held TO the world a partner, he be-
comes liable to those dealing with the firm in the
belief that he is partner, and he is precluded
from asserting that he was not, in fact partner.
C7S Ind, 26) Where one has been a member of
firm, and so advertised to the world, fails to
give notice of his withdrawal from the firm he
stands bound to those who give credit to the
firm in the belief that lie is still member of it.
This duty to give notice is not confined to form
err customers of the firm. (S4 Ind, SOB; rs i'd,
26; % Iowa, 543; Johns, 144) Where no such
notice is publicly given, and no actual notice is
brought home to one who had previous knowl-
COMPOSING firm. rp-
firing partner cannot escape liability upon the
ground that it was a matter of general notoriety
that he had withdrawn. z Pick, 361 20
N Y, $40; SO u. g.. 430J The
notice which a retiring partner must
give nlpsJ be reasonable one, and, whether or
not it was re 4sonabIe, is proper matter for
the jury. Judgment affirmed
SURETY FOR ANoTHERs DEBT-sTATUTE OF
FRAUDS.
1877. James BOyce VS.. JnO. w. Murphy ct
al Henry @. G.
Niblack, c. J.-Boyce accompanied Galbraith
to the store of appellees, TO assist him in pur-
chasing a stock of goods, stating that he
willing to do anything that would be satisfactory
to the house. Appellee said the goods might be
charged to both. but shipped in the name of
Galbraith alone, or joint note given by them.
BOyce repeated that either way would be salts
braith were charged to both men on the books
were other bills bought by Galbraith from
time TO time No statement OF the account was
ever sent to Boyee. nor any demand OF payment
made of him. nor did he know that the goods
were charged to him, nor that the house looked
to him for payment GaibraIth went into bank
raptcy afterwards, and the appellees had judg-