The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-21
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-Nov. go.
Hon. W. Il. Niblack. Chief Justice

Hon. w. H. Niblack. Chief Justice.
The clerk calls the attention of attorneys to
mitted cases on the docket III which the briefs
OF the appellees nave not been filed. They will
go TO the court within che next thirty days, and
briefs should be filed at once.
The November term of the court begins on
next Monday, and the docket will be called on
Tuesday.
$3.50. Williamson Wright VS.. Michael Fanser.
Cass G. G.
Elliott, Jon petition for rehearing. The
court did not properly cOnstrue the record The
appellee on eross-examnatiOn fully admitted
that the ownership of the property had been
fully settled ia the replevin action, and there
was no dispute as to that question. The intro
duction OF the record in that action would have
proved no !, more than the appellee ADMITTED. ana
record in the repleyin action. Petition over
ruled.
AMENDING OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.
1o,3o5, Rhoda Levi VS.. August Enge. Rip.
Howk, J.-Suit by appellee to recover posses
SION OF real estate. Appellant was not an orig
lnal defendant in the case, but was admitted by
order of the court. Appellee did not then amend
his complaint by inserting her name therein, and
did not aver that she had unlawfully kept him
out of possession. For the want of such amend
ments the complaint did not state cause of &C
tion against appellant and her demurrer thereto
ought to have been sustained. az Ind, SOL; 81
i'd, 1861 Judgment reversed.
eUARDIAN-TUITIoN AND BOARD OF WARD.
1874. Elk rel. Cynthia Durham VS.. Thomas
Roche, administrator, Huntington G. c.
Hammond, J.-Action by the appellant on the
bond OF guardian, charging that he had con-
verified to his own use money of his ward. The
surety answered that the guardian had expend-
ed ST. ,06S for the tuition and board of said ward,
which amounted to more than all the
money of his ward that came to his
hands. This answer was bad for fail
uTe TO aver that the ward had no father
or mother at the time the guardian provided
board and tuition for her; or that they were I'M
able or unwilling to furnish her such board and
tuition; or to aver facts showing that the wards
estate justified the expenditure charged for.
r. 8, 2,5l5, 2.521; Ind, 257: 45 ID, 16o; 81
i'd, 81 j i'd, 81; 81 i'd. 562 ~ Id. 52S; "a Id,
3O5; 81 i'd, 56O@ nonresident relatrfx may
properly he required to file bond for costs
when she is the plaintiff in suit. Judgment
reversed.
COUNTY sTATIoNERY-AcT OF 1875.
l0422. Commissioners of Madison county vs..
William B. Burford. Madison C. G.
Elliott, J.-Courts are bound to respect laws
the properly authenticated acts of the LeSisla-
ture filed by the proper officers and received in
accordance with law by the Secretary OF State
cannot look behind the bill to the legisla-
tive proceedings 80 Ind, 514 So i'd, 254; 70
80 Miss, $50; 80 N. J. L.. 29J The act of 1875
providing that all contracts for the purchase OF
stationery, etc, for the use of county officars
shall be made ny the board of commissioners, is
properly authenticated, and it must be pre-
sumed to have been properly enacted. The
commissioners may, at their option, pay or re-
fuse bill contracted by the county clerk for
stationery for his Office (Acts of 1875, p. 32)
The court erred in sustaining the demurrer TO
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1856. Curtis S. Hay wood VS.. Hiram Hedrck.
Tlppecanoe S. e..
Niblack, c. faction by the appellee to re-
cover damages for property destroyed by sparks
from plaintiffs Jhreshing machine. The second
paragraph of answer amounted to a charge that
the plaintiff was guilty of coDtributory negli-
gence, and the third TO an allegation that it was
not the defendants but some third person who
caused the destruction of the property. These
matters were admissible under the general de-
NAL, and there was no available error in sus-
tanning demurrers to these answers. 1t was not
necessary for the plaintiff to charge that the de-
PENDANTS had been guilty OF negligence in the
employment of the engineer who had charge of
their engine when the accident occurred, III
actions like this the negligence of the servant is
imputed to the master, and it ia sufficient to
charge the injury directly TO the master. rs
Ind, 261; Add. ON Torts, SO aud $500 Judg
ment affirmed.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-NEGL IGENcE-ATTA
MENT.
c. go &. ii'"n A. 0''A' Vs. ''iA"" ans N"oA
collars, J.-Appellee sued upon the following
instrument: Received of Mrs. Diana Falls one
note against u p. Estes for S1,100. This
for collection. H. A. Foulks." Appellee alleged
that she instructed appellant to attach the land
of Estes in Knox county, which he failed to do.
whereby she lost her debt While the instru.
ment has the elements Of a receipt taken in all
1t parts it expresses contract for the collection
of the note, and had it been signed by appellant
as an attorney it would upon It's face express an
attorneys contract for the collection of the note.
u johns, lS0; u Ia. 3 la 10 Am. R,s 600;
AZ Wis, $3.50 AS it was not signed by appellant
as attorney, parol evidence was admissible to
show in what capacity he signed 1t. abb Trial
Ev., $50, 294; ST N. Y, 674; 80 Ind. 1872; So i'd,
SIS; 60 i'd, 548) But conceding that he exc
cuted the contract as an attorney, it
imposed Sp9q MN the dnsy OF skill and
the duty Of furnishing the necessary
bond and making the required affidavit for an
attachment. The contract did not Impose on ap-
peant the duty of making the affidavit and
bond, nor would positive instructions from APP
pellee requiring such services have imposed such
duty. In proper case attorney may be made
liable for failure to prepare the affidavit and
bond in attachment for the failure to give proper
advice or the giving of erroneous advice in rela-
tion to such procedure. But here the claim was
solely for failure to institute attachment pro
ceedings, and it Is not shown that Appellee ever
offered to make the necessary affidavit or TO
furnish the bond. Appellant was not, therefore,
liable for not bringing an attachment suit. Judg-
ment reversed.
Superior Court.