The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-19
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-Oct. II.
Hon. w. L. Niblack, Chief Justice.


JUDGMENT-CoRREcTING MIsTAKE-PRAcTICE.
1921. Sarah c. Gray VS.. John B. Robinson
ct al. Vigo C. Q.
BIcknell. C. C.-This was q motion by appel
liant TO correct a Judgment. The appellees were
sureties on the note. The principals made de-
fault, and Judgment was rendered by agreement
for 81, O59.l4, the amount claimed to be due by
appellant. Execution was issued and levied on
property of the principals sufficient to pay the
entire debt including the excess afterwards
claimed By the plaintiff In order TO save costs
and delay, the suretieS paid the Judgment, the
property was released and the sureties became
1nsOlveut. Appellant then filed her motion TO
correct the Judgment. showing that she had
made mistake, and that there was 81 more
due than she had obtained Judgment for. Held:
The appellees had right to rely ana act upon
the plaintiffs statement made in open court, ana
having made an arrangement which satisfied the
Judgment and relieved them, but which lett the
principal debtors insOlvent, it would be unjust
10 permit the Judgment to he increased at their
loss. A party will not be relieved against MS
own mistake. where the rights of third parties
have interviewed. 46 Ind, 2S4; Freeman Jnd.,
secs. 1914; 81 Ind, 5S0.) The plaintiff acted lr-
regularly i'll Issuing a summons to answer a com
plant, instead of giving notice to answer mo-
ton, and the defendants in filing an
answer when none required But the
case was heard and determined upon the evil
dence, and the result was the same as II the
proceedings had been summary. In such a case
the proceedings and the rulings thereon are
harmless. (57 Ind, 1872; % i'd, 1922 Judgment
affirmed.
SUPPLEMENTAL oMPLAINT-INJU NCTIoN-PRAC-
NCE.
1851 Robert Morey ct al VS.. Cyrus Ball. Tip
pecanOe s. c.
Best, ca supplemental complaint does not
supersede the original, but both stand and con-
stitute the complaint. a Ind, 1927 AS such
pleading only constitutes part of the com
plaint demurrer TO it - unknown TO our prae
tice, and it may be disregarded. In this case
the original complaint asked for injunction,
and as the demurrer was only TO the supple
mental complaint there was no error in issuing
the injunction before passing on the demurrer
hnf n mi al
join his debtor from disposing of his property
IN the absence of a statute. high on mi, sec.
13l, 1861 But under sec. 1877, R. 8. 1876, p. 90,
creditor, before judgment, may obtain an in
Junction If IL appears that the debtor ls about TO
dispose of his property with intent to defraud
his creditors. This fact sufficiently appears The
motion to modify this order so as not to prohibit
appellants from transferring the property of
Morey IL Ball. or their individual property,
should have been sustained. The firm and it's
members were liable for the appelee's claim, but
it was not alleged that the members OF this firm
were threatening to dispose of their property
fraudulently, and this was necessary to sustain
the injunction. Judgment reversed.