The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-09-25
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-Sept. ~.
Hon. W. L. Nlblack, Chief Justice.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF JURY.


Hon. W 4 NibIack, Chief Justice.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF JURY.
$500. Hebron Gravel-road Company vs.. Ali
son c. Harvey. TppecanOe G. G.
Bioknell, Con petition for rehearlng II Is
con tended that Lake Headley is in no sense u
running stream, but Il mere collection of surface
water. Bat the difference between permanent
watercourse and mere surface water dis
tlnctly pointed out TO the jury, and as there was
some evidence tending 10 show that the stream
Is permanent water-course, the verdict cannot
be disturbed because the evidence was conflict
ing. (S5 Ind, 1917 Petition for rehearing over
ruled.
DEED OF MARRIED woMAN-wHEN yoIDABLE.
1868 Mary Z. Fisher vs. James B. Payne.
johnson G. c.
Best. C.-Action by appellant TO recover land,
avering that she joined her husband in convey
ing the land in 1863, when she was less than
nineteen years old, whereupon her deed was
voidable. Under the statute then in force
married woman over eighteen years OF
age could join her husband in deed
mother or the circuit judge in case
of their death. The simple averment
therefore that appellant was less than nineteen
years old when she Joined in the deed does not
show that the deed was voidable without an
averment that the deed was not made with the
consent of one of the persons authorized by law
to authorize its execution by her. State exrel.
vs.. Witt, last term.) Judgment affirmed.
HUSBAND AND INTERSTATE BY ENTIRETIEs.
1856 George F. Carver ct al Newton
Smith, Montgomery G. c.
what estate do husband and wife take in lands
conveyed TO them jointly. 1t Is contended that
by the legislation of 1881 upon the rights of mar
ried women, husband and wife become separate
persons, and that as their legal univ was the
basis OF the law under which they took the en-
tirety, its dissolution destroys the law founded
thereon. An unhroken line of decisions in
this State, from 1868 to 1881, recognize the va
lidty of the statutory law as to entlret1es. and
none of them intimate that the law in any
degree impaired by the legislation of 1892 and
later years, enlarglng womens rights. The
wife's righttO her separate real estate dis
tlncG person, % as fully established by the
legislation of 1852 as by that of 1881, and
1t is coupled with the same limitation in both,
that she shall not convey or incumber the prop
erty except by deed in which her husband snail
join. 1t is evident that the Legislature OF 1881
did not intend TO repeal the statutes establish
ing tenaneies by entireties but simply to
large some particulars the separate power of
the wife already conferred by prior statutes tSee
528: 6S i'd, 245 rs i'd. 40f.l The statute Great
ing estates by entirety has not yet been re-
pealed. Judgment affirmed.
DEcEDENTs' EsrArEs-JUDGMENTs.
10,111., Estate Of VIM. Thomas VS., George
Service Iaporte G. c.
Black C.-This cause was prosecuted
against the estate of William Thorn
claimant recover from the assets of said
estate" 1t appears that there final set
Element of the estate and that the admlnistra-
tors were discharged without any disposition of
this claim, and the final settlement had not been
set aside and there was no administrator when
Judgment on Dne claim WAS rendered. III does
not appear thata judgment was rendered against
any person either an individual or in
a representative capacity In such condition
of the record the court would be mD-lled to
strike the cause from the docket, but she same
result was accomplished by sustaining the mo-
zion to dismiss the appeal. Petition for rehear
ing UveTruled.
MoRTGAGE-sAvINGs AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS.
1861. Henry Whpperman VS.. Jacob c.
Smith. White c. c.
Black, C.-Appellee assigned to appellant three
shares of stock in building and loan assoUia-
ton, and executed mortgage whereby he
agreed to keep paid up all dues on the shares.
and upon failure so TO do the mortgage should
be foreclosed. The three shares were repre-
sented in the mortgage as being of the value
when they should mature of 5000. To make
them arrive at that value il was necessary thar
accruing dues to the association be kept paid
up, and the undertaking of the mOrtgagOr was
TO keep the dues paid up, and the amount for
fOreclosed was stated to be all dues necessary
to complete said shares to make them par.
secure the stock 10 the extent that il
had already been paid up. The
assignment would let the assignee
into the benefits Of membership enjoy ed by the
assignor. There was no undertaking to protect
the mortgage from the association but to pay
the dues or stock holder to the association and
the mortgage could not be fOTeclOsed, although
the association was insOlvent, without an allie.
cation that the mOrfgageor had failed to pay The
dues assessed against the shares assigned. Judg-
ment affirmed.
Observation-Disclosures
1883 Silas Baldwin VS.. Frank Fleming
Warren c. c.
Black, C.--The only question in this case is
whether the evidence Sustains the finding of the
court. Albert and Ralph Baldwin were princi-
pals IN a note, and asked Fleming to go on the
note as surety. He answered that if they would
get their father Slas Baldwin, to go on the note
he would then sign it, and this DONE Fleming
testified that he intended to sign the note the
surety of all the other signers and not as the
cO-surety of Silas. Silas testified that when
Ralph asked him TO sign the note for him, he
said Albert would get Fleming to sign the note
as his (Alberts) surety. Heidi Fleming had
right to determine for whom he would
become surety and TO fix the nature
OF his liability between him and the other
makers By agreement, written parole. ex-
press or implied between him and the principal
entrusted with the note by appellant after he
had signed it, appelee's liability might be made
that of surety for all other makers, without
appellants knowledge. (36 VI, 400; 40 VT,
1885, 81 Ind, 129; 70 i'd, 5l3) While the case is
not free from doubt, she court is disposed hold
that the testimony of the appellee that he signed
the note as surety for all the other signers