The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-09-04
superior Court-.GeneraI Term.

John B. Cross ct al. VS.. Thames Loan and
Trust Company. Affirmed. g..
Walker IA bill to review Judgment for
errors apparent of record is in the nature OF ttu
appeal. Each is a proceeding to review Judg-
ment, and any question that does not arise upon
an appeal cannot be reached by proceeding 10
review. The form of Judgment may not be
questioned in either case, unless the court com
hitting the error first have an opportunity 10
correct the Judgment. 90 Ind, 424; 81 Ind,
"a, modifying 40 Ind, 1888; 40 IND, DO, and 90
Ind, 54S9
An assignment of error that tine complaint
does not state facts to constitute a cause of ac-
ton questions nothing less than the whole COM
plant and nothing more, and, If good for any re-
lef Will repel the attack made by sucn assign
ment
John Kidd, assignee, VS.. Emanuel Blatt etal
Affirmed.
Walker, IA married woman under the act
of 1881, failing in business and making an as
signment under the State law for the benefit OF
creditors, cannot convey her real estate to her
assignee for the payment OF her debts, unless
her husband join her in the execution OF such
trust, but no subsequent Judgment creditor may
plead ner disability and defeaG the assignment
aud her voluntary payment of such debts by the
sale of such realty. She alone can interpose her
disability of coverture. "a Ind, 1922
Eli p. Baker VS. William B. Walls. Affirmed
Howe, J.-Although a Judgment has been
taken for too much, sherihSs sale under it is
not void, and application for relief must be made
within rue period allowed for redemption. (Sl
Ind. 1881
Ernst Base VS.. Mary Reutsch. Affirmed.
Howe, J.-Suit by DlainUif for damages COM
mitted by defendant while intoxicated. Held
to be good defense that plaintiff gave defend
ant Intoxicating liquor, knowing the effect OF
intOXcatiOu upon her conduct, and that it
would cause her to commit the injuries com
planned of.
A C.. Goddin VS.. J. Slut Neal Affirmed.
Howe, J.-It seems that the words ''1Guoiary
character" i'll the United States bankrupt act Of
1867, exempting from the discharge debts of the
bankrupt createdwhlle acting in afidnciary char
acter, do not extend beyond technical trusts.
They do not cover collections made by an artor-
norney in fact 127 Mass, Al; 81 Ind, 27l)
Query: Whether a Judgment Is not barred by
the discharge although the debt upon which 1t
was rendered may have been of tiduciary char
acter, see Is Gray, 547 1872 Mass, 2S3
United States Mortgage Company VS.. Indian
apolis Journal Company. Affirmed.
Howe, i'm suit to fOreclOse a mortgage a
Judgment OF foreclosure was rendered and re
ce1ver appointed. Afterwards one of the defend
ants began a suit to review the Judgment. Held:
That the receiver had no right to charge the
funds in his hands by employing an attorney to
defend such suit.
Sarah A. Briggs vs. Thomas Wright ct al Re-
versed as to Wright, affirmed as to Bernhamer.
Howe, J.-COvenanus running with land which
are future in their operation, such as covenants
of warranty, quiet enjoyment, etc, inure to the
benefit OF every subsequent owner who may be
the owner at the time of the breach, although
he may hold by quit-clai only. q Susden, Ven
doris, 9Th Am. ed, 1913. 239, notes Smith Lead.
cases. 9th Am ed, 100; ROwle, Covenants for
Title, 4th ed, 1874, note ~ But this rule
does not apply to covenants against encum-
hranoes so as 10 make them inure TO the
benefit of a holder by Quit-claim. (43 Ind,
| 2l1; 2 Lead. cases in Eq 4th Am. ed, 304)
The mere fact that the owner of one of several
parcels OF land covered by an incumbrance
holds only by a quIt-claim deed-is no bar to his
right to demand that the iHcumbrance be en-
forced against the person or properly IsinIarily
liable. Nor is 1t necessary, if he derives his
equity through remote grant0r, that he should
Lead cases in Ed, 4th Am. ed, 297; Rawle
Gov. for Title, 4th ed. 533, note)