The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-25
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-ApriI "a.


non. Nlllldm a. w OOuS, CnleI justice.
coMPLAINT-BILL OF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
10,375: Henry Lassiter VS.. Sarah F. jackson
Huntington c. q.
HOwk, IA complaint, which does not in
terms refer to a bill of particulars filed with it.
Is bad on demurrer; but If it be not demurred to
The defect will be cured by the verdict GA Ind
377; % ia, 161; 81 i'd, 1893; 70 il, 307) Where
an account is assigned by the creditor to a third
person and the debtor agrees to pay what is due
to the assignee, the latter need not show either
an acceptance of the transfer or demand he
fore the commencement of suit. (7S Ind, 213.]
Judgment affirmed
SELLING WITHOUT LICENsE-EVIDENCE.
10,772. Samuel Davis vs.. The State. Miami
Niblack, J.-Appellant, who was a practicing
physician and the owner of a drug store, was
prosecuted for selling liquor without license
There was evidence strongly tending to
sustain the defense that the liquor
medicine, of which he was actually i'll need
There was also evidence contradictory of this
theory. and in such cases this court will not dis
turb the finding of the court below. Judgment
affirmed.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
10,451. Charles McIlvain VS.. the State ex rel.
Emory. Marion g. Q.
Woods, c. J.-Appellant disputes the consti-
tutionaIity OF SO much of the law concerning
basUardy as requires the Imprisonment of the
defendant upon his failure to pay or replevy the
Judgment rendered against him. The question
is not an open one. (25 Ind, 66; Al i'd, 2TS 40
id, 5Sl) Judgment affirmed.
SERIES OF NoTEs-FoRMER ADJUDICATION.
10,O19. Willard FELTON, VS.. John II. Smith.
Montgomery G. G.
Elliott, J.-Appellants action was upon the
second of series of four notes. There had been a
former suit on the first note, in which the
defendant answered that the assignment was
without consideration; that the consideration
for the assignment of the four notes 5000,
and that defendant was entitled to n set-Off of
800. Appellant recovered $500, the principal
and interest of the note sued on amounting to
$500. This Judgment did not amount to a
former adjudication in the suit the second
note. The defense was a partial one to the
single cause of action declared on and decision
on it did not necessarily settle the whole con-
trOversy. Where a judgment settles the entire
defense to series of Entes, although rendered
upon one only of the series, it cOnclusivey ad-
Judlcates the controversy to all of the SERIES
but this is only where the entire subiect-matter
of the defense is litIgated in the action and
is determined by the Judgment. IA Ind, 455;
"a i'd, 1O2; 66 i'd, 252; . Am. Dec, 256; 20
Mo, 5S3; 30 Mich, 3Sl.b Because APP
pellant recovered $500 on the note first
sued on he cannot claim to be entitled to
recover like sum on each of the other notes.
nor because the appellee succeeded in cutting
down the amount OF recoverycan he claim that the
Judgment conclusivey settles that the consider
alton for the assignment Of all the notes no
more than the sum recovered in that action. (94
U. s., 423, 65l, COG; 80 Mass, 200.) Evidence
might have been given to show that the judg-
ment did, in fact, exhaust the whole eonsidera-
ton, but no such evidence was offered. Judg-
meuC reversed,