The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-09-19
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-sEPT. 18.
PRACTICE-MoTIoN FOR NEW TRIAL.


1898. Samuel ROdifer VS.. Nathaniel Fletcher
Clinton G. G.
Howk, J.-suit by appellant against appellee
as The assignor of prOmissory note. Appellant
assigned for a trial that ''the
Judgment was contrary to law" etc. 1t is cause
for new trial if the verdict or finding is con
trary to law but not so of the Judgment. 49,
Ind, $40; 55 id 1874; 80 i'd, 573) The motion
for new trial was sufficient either in form
or substance Judgment affirmed.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE-PLEA TO INDICTMENT.
1926. Tetmany Shaffner vs. The State. Hen
bricks c. C.
Niback, c. IA trial upon an Indictment or
information without plea is such an irregular-
ty as entities the defendant to a new trial, but
advantage can only be taken of such defect in
the proceedings by motion for a trial
(R. s., 1881, Sec 1912; II Ind, 3I4) A motion
TO correct the minutes of the court after the
trial OF the cause so as to show that the defend
ant did not in fact enter plea of any kind to
the information presents no question. Judg-
ment affirmed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BY ONE JOINT DEBTOR.
10,400. Christopher KlippeI vs. Lycurgus
Shields. Jackson, G. @.
Elliott, J.-Ewing and Shields were indebted
to Green and Ewing and wife executed a mort
gage on certain land owned by them to secure
the indebtedness. This mortgage fore
closed and personal Judgment over rendered
against Shields and Ewing and another tract
of land belonging to Ewing sold on the exc
cution ana bought in by Green, who assigned
the sheriffs certificate to Shields, he having
paid the Judgment. Held: The payment of the
Green Judgment by one of the two joint debtors
was an 6&JlugulSnmenE or the Judgment and
made 1t legally impossible to enforce it by the
execution of deed. "a n. Y, 229; 8 Mass,
139; 81 Ala, 405; Jones Eq. 1861 The fact
That the sheriHs deed was made to the wife of
Shields does not affect the operation of the rule.
The controlling fact in such case is the pay
,ment by one legally bound to pay. (29 Ind,
f256; "a i'd, 440 Sheldon SEGREGATION, section
-oO) AS against the grantees of Ewing and wife
the appellee, Shields, had no title to the land.
Judgment reversed.
LIFE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTEREST.
Cant 7
vs.. Louise V0lger Vigo G. C.
Hammond, J.IAppellee alleged in her com
plant that on Feb y 1870, she insured the life
of her mother with appellant, in the sum of
$4,000; that she paid the annual premiums on
the policy for seven years, and was entitled to a
pa1d-np policy for -tifteenths of the face of
the policy. Prayer for specific performance of
the contract to issue a Dald-up policy, and for
Judgment for the amount of pTemiums maid
Held, as the appellee took out the policy and
paid the premiums she, ami not her mother,
should be regarded as the real party in interest.
But It Is well settled that policy taken by one
upon the NE OF another, IN the continuance of
whose life the assured has no pecunary interest,
Is void az against public policy al Ind, 116;
% 10, $500 The lnsurable interest must be a
pecuniary one, and near relationship alone is
not sufficient foundation upon which to rest
an insurable interest MAY on ms sec 10Y;
~ Mass3 l15; s. C. 7 Am. Dec,
1912; % Am. r., 100; % Ind,
'236 The complaint WAS bad for failure to aver
the insnrable interest of the plaintiff in the life
OF her mother Judgment reversed.
CONTROL OF HIGHWAYS
1854. Thomas NJ. Jones, trustee, VS.. Isaac
ID Damn. Jasper @. G.
Howk, J.-Secuon of the drainage act OF
1881 Sec 1921, r, s. was repealed by the road
act 0f 1881 (R. s., Sec 5,064 to 5000 to the ex-
TENT OF taking from the township trustee the en-
tire control of all roads, highways and bridges
In MS township. and committing the same to
she superintendent of roads If the provisions
OF section 1921 are enforceable all it is only
by the superintendent of roads. Judgment al
6rmed.
Observation-Disclosures
10, 1862. George Mooney VS.. James Kinsey.
Henry G. @.
z"lars, faction upon a pTomissOry note to
Ioreolose mortgage. The evidence was con-
1ilcting, but the verdict cannot be disturbed
upon the weight of it. There was no error in the
instructions given. Appellant claims a new
trial on the ground of surprise but the affidavit
- not sufficient. Judgment affirmed