The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-05

estate which be could enforce against the de-
PENDANT in that action. and. after finding for the
defendant, ordered that the Judgment rend-
cred Should not prejudice the rights of the
parties as to any other action which might
thereafter be brought This latter clause was
repugndnt to and nullified the first and formal
part OF the Judgment. The appellant. upon the
hnding, was entitled to Judgment that the
plaintiff take nothing by the action, and such a
Judgment necessarily concluded the parties IN
respect TO the right OF possession the time the
action was commenced. The motion to modify
the Judgment should have been sustained.
Judgment reversed.
DEED-FRAUD-INsTRUC NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
5,502. John MeCammack VS.. Robert Mccain
mack. Putnam G. G.
Howk, J.-suit by the ancestors of appellants
10 SET ASIDE conveyance of real estate on the
ground that the grantor was of unsouud mind
ana that the deed was procured by undue Inliu-
ence. Inc answer AYERS that the consideration
of the deed was that the grautee, who
was the son OF the grantor, would care
Tor MN in his old age and sickness, which
ne old, and that the grantOr was in sound
mind, and fully knew what he was doing. The
answer was full, and responded TO all the allega-
lions OF both paragraphs of the complaint, and
was certainly sufficient on demurrer. The evil
dence was conflicting, but sufficient to sus
tain the verdict. go Ind, 1881 Where instruc-
lions are asked they must be signed by the party
or his attorney aud delivered TO the court aud
the record must affirmatively show that they
were so signed at the time they We're asked for
ana delivered to the court. f37 Ind, 1885, 46
H., 1879 70 ID, 29S) Judgment affirmed.
Observation-Disclosures
9,407. Harmon Vititio VS.. John Hamilton.
Scott G, G.
Elliott. J.-wlllam Hamilton executed mort
gage ON certain land to appellee, and afterward
one TO appellant. In both mortgages
the land was enormously described,
and when appellant took his mortgag he had
no actual notice of appellees mortgage. Appel
liant brought an action to reform and foreolose
ms MORTGAGE, not making appellee a party, and
bought in the properly at the sheriff s SALE and
afterward appellee brought action to reform
and foreclose, and had Judgment In his favor for
the possession of the land Held: AS the appellant
obtained title prior to any reformation of the APP
pellee's mortgage, it must he held the paramount
one. 20 Ind, 52S, 571; 65 i'd, 576J Judgment
reversed
MISUNDERSTANDING STOCK.
1897. L. N. A. & c. Railway Company vs.
oliver Overman. Jackson G. G.
Franklin, Gin an action against a railroad
company for killing stock it is sufficient to allege
that the stock entered upon the track at point
where the railroad not securely fenced.
The evinence sustains the finding and the dam
ages we're not excessive. Judgment affirmed.
The following cases were also decided:
1888, Jonathan Wilson Perry McCrary.
Rush Q. c. Affirmed, Woods, C. ].
S,455. silas Stribling Hagerman Trip.
Jennings c. G. Affirmed, Bicknell, C.
1O,207. Elisha Puett Jacob Beard. Mont
gomery c. Q. Reversed in part, Elliott, j.
$3.50. Thos. Gaff vs. James Greer. jennings
c. c. Affirmed, Best, c.
9,496. VIM. Greer VS.. Charles W. Elliott. Fay.
cite C. c. Affirmed Bicknell, c.