The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-19
SUPREME COURT-FEB. II.

DEcEDENTs' ESTABLISHMENTS OF WIDOW.
$50. Amanda Quakenbush VS.. Calvin Tay-
Tor. Green G.. G.
Franklin, C.-where the estate of decedent
Is set on TO the widow being worth less than
5000, and the widow pays The funeral expenses
ana expenses of last Sickness she takes the real
estate SO set off to her discharged from the lien
OF Judgments rendered against the decedenu in his
lifetime Judgment reversed.
9,232. Joseph K Prick VS. Lorenz Algeier
Vanderburg S. G.
Black. C-Action for money received by appel
liant to appellee's use. The question is whether
the evidence established defense of accord and
satisfaction, To constitute accord and salts
faction, that which is received by the creditor
on and A'' Sheher oS there IN was snS
an acceptance is a question for the jury. 49,
Ind, 429 SO Pa. St, 147; 16 i'd, 45O.) Judg-
meut affirmed.
MlNoR-NECEssA RIEs-PRACTICE.
1O,3O2. Laura Carr VS.. Robert E. Haskltt
Howard c. e,
BicknelI, C-Action against husband and wife
for goods sold TO the latter before her marriage.
II was shown that appellant was a minor when
the goods were purchased, nut the court found
that theY we're necessaries, and as the evidence
was conflicting, the finding of the court cannot
be set aside. 49, Ind, 45) Judgment affirmed.
EyIDENcE-BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
1O,07s. Philip Stanley Lafary Hale.
Best, C-Appellee filed a claim against the es-
tate of T. Stanley for services rendered by him
self and wife in nursing and waiting upon the
decedent Appellee was cripple and 1t was
not error TO admit the testimony of witness,
who stated that he saw the appellee splitting
rails at one time. This testimony admis-
sible to show that the appellee was physically
able to render the services for which he claimed
| payment. Where the bill of exceptions is tiled
after the term, and the record contains no state
| ment that time was given other than that found
in the bill itself, 1t Is not sufficient. (65 Ind
326) Judgment affirmed
PROMISE NOT TO ENGAGE IN BusINEss-CoN-
SHERATON.
1o,lO7. Frederick Thayer VS.. John ". Young.
Woods, c. J.-suit by appellant TO enjoin the
appellee from re-engaginY IN the practice of
appellees practice was worth $4,000 year, but
i In sdl5 It, to fenove from the state
ture and the good will of his business, and
| agreed not to practice again In Fort Wayne all
for the small sum OF $780, court of equity
may decline to Interfere where tue disprOporrion
between the restriction and the consideration Is
so great Kerr on InJunc., 5l4; High mi,
| 776, sec l,lSOD Besides the complaint did NOT
aver that the breach Of the agreement by the de-
| PENDANT had caused, or was likely TO cause, any
damage to the plainriff The court gave appel
| liant Judgment for $3.50, but refused njunc-
tion. This was right Judgment affirmed.
! ILLfTERATE NEGLIGENoE-PRAcTICE.
opt, James Baldwin VS.. Joseph Broker.
Putnam C. c.
Elliott. IA man who cannot read and who
signs note falsely read to him by tue payee,
is not to be deemed negligent simply
| from the fact that he signs the paper
upon The faith of the information so furnished
| HIM. Whether he Is guilty of negligence or not
is question for the jury. dan. Neg. Inst, $40;
| IS Ind, 403D Extracts from books or news
papers can only be used in argument to the
jury for the purpose OF illustration and never as
statement OF facts, or expression Of opinion, nor
when they contain statements of facts expires.
siOns of opinion concerning the particular
in hearing or cases of like character. Thomp.
on Juries, section 35l1 Where the record does
not show the character of the comments made
Dy counsel, the presumption will he that they
were such as he had u right TO make. Judg-
IneHt affirmed.
PAYMENT-BURDEN OF PROOF.
5000. Hiram Boswell vs. Richard Williams.
Benton c. c.
Franklin, C.-Where, on the same day that
Judgment rendered. it was agreed between
the parties that the price or certain pasturage
should be credited on the Judgment and no exc
| cutiUn should be issued thereon, the contract
was so intimately connected with the Judgment
and Its payment, that IA satisfaction in full there
after of the judgment sufficient TO raise a
presnmpti that the contract for pasturage was
settle d in the Element of the Judgment. Judg.
ment affirmed.
GALS. Holman Elliott. Decatur C. G. Re-
hearing denied. Woods, c. ].
| 10000. Cooper VS.. Cooper. Nigo c. c. Re-
versed. Best, G.
| 1888. Cardwi VS.. Gilmore Floyd c. c. Re-
versed. Bicknen, c.
| 7,194. Scott VS.. hudson. Crawford G. G. AT
| firmed Black, c.
| 1858. Strong VS.. The State. Morgan c. G.
Reversed. Niblack, j. Elliott. j., dissenting.