The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-19
SUPREME COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-Feb. Is.

DEscENTs-lNHERITANCE OF HUSBAND.
s,o25. Malta Fontaine VS.. George A. Hous-
ton. Marion G. c.
Bicknell, C.-Construed together. the meaning
of sections and 25 Of the statutes of deseents
is that If the wife die intestate, leaving a hus-
band and no child. but a father or mother, her
property shall descend, three-fourtns to the
widower and onefourth to the parents jointly
or the survivors of them; but if the property
was conveyed to the wife by the husband in
consideration OF love aud affection, then the
whole OF 1t reverts TO him. Judgment affirmed.
PRoMIssoRY NoTE-sURETYsHIP
$3.50. James McTaggart VS.. VIM. polan. Cass
G. Z.
Morris. C.-Action by shroyer on note
pellee. Appellant filed cross-complaint
in which he alleged that after
the execution of the note, appellee, in consdera-
ton that appellant would release $500 of "a
mortgage on real estate executed to them by
one Laughlin to indemnify them IA suretes for
Laughlin, he, appellee, would pay the note, and
that by virtue of said agreement appellant be-
came surety and appellee principal on said
note Appellee answered that he and appellant
each; that he paid his $780, and appellant Dor
rowed the $500 for which the note in suit was
given, and appellee signed it as surety; that he
bought prouerty of Laughlin for which he
to pay 5000, out of which he should pay the S4G0
note; but that after buying the property he
found that it was incumbered in excess of 5000
which he had to pay, and that the consideration
of his agreement to pay the note had failed.
This answer was bad The release of appellants
interest III Ine LduSnlln mortgage was "a SUM-
clent consideration for appellees promise TO pay
the note The consideration which passed be-
tween appellee and Laughlln was matter with
which appellant had nothing to do, and for the
failure of which he was not responsible. The
question of suret yship conld be decided in this
case. az Ind, SO; 81 N. Y, 90; rs Ind, 2S6 }
Judgment reversed
PARoL OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
1000. MARGARET switzer VS.. Daniel Hawk.
Mon tgomery &. c.
Woods. C. J-where widow elects to take
under the law and agrees by parol with the de-
visees, in consideration that they pay to
the executor the sum which, by the
terms of the will they were already
bound to pay, that the land devised
to each should be set off to them, and under this
agreement each takes possession of the land set
off to him and makes permanent improvements
thereon, such agreement is not binding on the
widow. both because not in wrting.and without
consideration, and she is not estopped to assert
her right to one-thlrd of such lands. 20 Ind.
179: II i'd, 302; Nash r. p, 3d. 566 5S7; 3 id.
215) As between tenants in common no such
past performance Is shown as TO take the case
out of the statute OF frauds. Is Ind, 81; 81 i'd;
44GD Judgment reversed.
CIRCUIT NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. AND Gil
7.342. Alex. Thompson Hez Pershing.
Marshall c. c.
Morris, C.-The statute gives Circuit Courts
right TO adopt rules in relation TO the business of
such courts the only limitation being that their
rules shall not be repugnant to law and to those OF
the Supreme Court upon the same subject If the
latter court has adopted no rules with relation
to changes of venue, the Circuit Courts may
adopt such rules as seem advisable upon that
subject. (2S Ind, 2O5: 90 i'd. 442: AZ i'd 267 }
An attorney may, without express authority,
bind his client by agreement That Judgment may
be taken against him, even though he knows his
client has a good defense. If lie acts to the in
Jury of his client, the latter must look to the at
tcrney for redress. (54 Ind, 2I5J Judgment
affirmed
NoTE-INS0LvENCY OF MAKER-DILIGENCE.
$3.50. Charles schmied VS., Mary 5, Frank.
Switz .rland C.. C.
Morris, G. In suit against the ipdorser of n
note, the allegation that the maker was wholly
insolvent and had no property subject ta execu-
ton is equivalent to an allegation of omen and
notorious insolvency. 19 Ind, 1913; % i'd, 320)
Where suit against the maker is waived by the
indorser ut the time of the Endorsement, parol
evidence is admissible to establish such waiver.
(2 Par bills. 58l; 10 Pa. ST, 396: 81 Ind, 1872;
"a i'd, 57l; Dan. Neg. Inst, ,O939 Where the
note is secured by mortgage and the tndorser
valves suit against the maker until he snail give
notice, the indorsee is not required to use dill
gence in foreclosing the mortgage, and when he
has done so, the sum for which the mortgaged
property sold must be deemed its true value at
The time of sale (47 Ind, 1868 Where
a note ia not negotiable by the
law merchant, the purchaser is only
entitled to recover the amount which he paid
for it with interest Judgment affirmed condi-
tiouallY,