The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-10
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-Oct. o.

Hon. W. E. Niblack. Chief Justice.
MIsAPPRoPRIATIoN OF COMMON SCHOOL FUNDS
LIMITATIONS.
1918. Elk rel, Encouragement VS.. Commits
| siouers of ST. Joseph County ST. Joseph c. G.
| Hammond, J.-BY the school law OF 1865, and
also of 1865, still in force (Sec 1925, R. 81, the
| Income of the common school fund and the taxes
levied and collected for tuition are required To be
applied exclusively to furnishing tuition in the
common schools of the State. Provision is made
for payment out OF the county fund OF the fees of
| officers for collecting, managing and dispensing
| the tuition fund. (Secs 5000. 1927 and 5,92S.1
| From the constitutional and statutory provi-
sions It Is manifest that, with reference to COM
mon school funds, the State and county act sim
! ply as trustees for the benefit of the school
children of the State. The county cannot repu-
| date or dlsavow its trust, and where 1t misap-
! propriates common school funds, failure of
the proper officers to bring suit for any length
of time after notice of the misrepresentation can
| be set up by way of Limitation TO the action to
! the prejudice OF the benehciaries of the trust
Judgment reversed.
MEDICAL SERVICES FOR PAUPERs-PRAoTICE
1O,o66. Commissioners Of Orange County VS.
John A Ritter. Orange G. G.
Howk, jim complaint by a physi-
clan for medical services rendered to
paupers at the request OF township trustee
is not necessary to aver that the county board
had not contracted with physicians to attend
upon the poor generally in the county. If such
contract had been in fact made it is proper
matter of defense. In such formal com
| plant is necessary, but a detailed statement OF
| the Items and dates of charge is sufficient. 49,
! Ind, 20; SO ia, 81; 76 id, 504l The county
board may bind the county oy parol contract
| for such services, and such contract may be
proved by parOl evidence. (52 Ind, 171 56 i'd,
| 1861 Judgment affirmed.
HUSBAND AND WIFE-LANDLoRD AND TENANT.
10.165. Maria Davis VS.. Charles Watts, ad-
ministrator. Hendricks C. C.
and James Davis was widOwer. Each had
| minor children, and each owned farm. They
married and lived with their children, on appel
| lants farm for eighteen years, using the lands of
each in common. Out of the profits the family
was supported, the taxes paid, aud the farms
improved. This was an action by appellant
against the administrator of Davis for
the occupation and use of the farm at 5000 a
a tenancy nor liability for Occupation
and by the husband will be inn
piled. lsee 70 Ind, sol; 20 i'd 618; 40 i'd, 285;
"a i'd, log; 80 Wis, 376 40 Wis, 548) The
special finding does not show any agreement of
tenancy or TO pay for the use and occupation of
the land. Judgment affirmed.
NATIONAL BANKs-PURcHAsE OF MORTGAGES.
SPA Ira N. Holmes vs. John NJ Boyd. Boone
&C
Niback, 1.-THE First National Bank of Thorn
town held junior mortgage on certain real
estate of Holiness for pre- existing debt, and
the appellee, as its cashier bought in senior
mortgage on the same Land and took an assign
meut thereof 20 himself The assignment misle
Boyd trustee of an express trust, and he was
authorized to sue without joining the bank. (See
222 X. B.. Dab. Neg. Inst, sec All, Wal, 239;
30 Ind, 231; 62 ID, 1889 National banks may
purchase real estate mortgaged to them in good
faith security for debts previously contracted.
~. s. X. b, sec. 0,137; 70 Ind, 1863 Having
the right to take the junior mortgage, the bank
had the right to purchase the seyhor mortgage
in order 10 protect the security yforded by the
Junior mortgage. (120 Mass, 1873; 2 Otto, l22;
16 Kan, 81; 81 Ia, 1919 Neither the payment
of interest already accrued nor a promise to pay
such interest may thereafter lawfully accrue
upon note will afford sufficient consideration
for an agreement TO extend tile time of payment
of the note. go Ina, 285J Judgment affirmed
CoNTEMPTs OF CoURT-PRACTICE.
10,S07. Joseph Little VS.. The State. Marion
G. G.
Elliott, J.-Appeilant was adjudged guilty of a
contempt OF court FOR proposing to the father of
defendant, then on trial, that If he would pay
appellant certain sum of money he could .wxth
it influence the jury to acqut the defendant.
Among the inherent powers Of court of supe-
rior jurisdiction is that of maintaining its dig
nifty, securing obedience to its process and pro
tectng its officers and jurors from lnd gnity and
wrong by Furnishing for contempt The Legsla-
ture may regulate the exercise of this power,
but can neither take it away nor materially i'm
pair it. "a Eng, 263; Is Ark, 1884, 81 ILL.,, 1876:
% Ind, 40 The fact that the act Is not en-
braced In any of the statutory dehHitlons OF q
contempt does not deprive the court of the
power to treat and punish it as a contempt if it
be really such. One who, for the purpose of Sc
curing money for himself, falsely pretends to
another Interested in the result of n cause that
he can cOrruptly influence with money the jul
rOrs trying the cause is guilty of "a contempt.
Such act tends to disgrace and degrade the
jury in the mind of the person to whom the cor
rupt proposition is made. Judgment affirmed.