The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-05
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme COurt-NOv. 3.
Hon. w. L. Niblack, ChiefJustice
BAsTARDY-INTEECOuR WITH OTHER MEN

Observation-Disclosures WITH OTHER MEN
1927. james H. Benham VS.. State, ex rel.
Richardson. Ripley c. c.
Best, C.-Tn "a prosecution for hastardy the
relatrix may be required to stale whether she
has had sexual intercourse with any one other
than the defendant about the time the child was
begOtten. IA Ind, 469; i'd, ll21 The limit
within which this inquiry may be made depends
upon the circumstances of each case. If cOncep-
tOn is claimed to occur from a single act of
COTTON, the date of which is fixed, there is little
difficulty; but If it follows three four different
acts as in this case, at different times and "A
fully developed child is born less than nine
months thereafter the inquiry ought to en-
brace a greater period, especially before the al
legged acts of intercourse. The court was not
justified in limiting the inquiry to small IA Pc
rod of Tune as was done IN this case. Judgment
reversed.
REPLEvIN-REs ADJUDICATA
1O,8os Thomas Woods vs.. Theodore P. Kes
ler Noble c. c.
Franklin C.-To an action on an undertaking
in a replevin case for failure of the plaintiff to
prosecute his action, etc. the sureties answered
that one of them held prior mortgage
on the property repleved and that the
defendant in the replevin suit took the property
subject to that mort gage. This answer was bad
The sureties for Williams, plaintiff in the re-
plevin suit. obligated themselves to make good
his covenants, and their liability cannot he at
feCted by any lien that one of them may hold on
the property. The question Of ownership and
right OF possession, as between Williams and ap-
pellee, was settled in the former suit and is res
adjudicata (23 Ind., 500 20 i'd, SOB; 81 i'd, 400
Judgme mt affirmed
RETURN ON -RECORD-CONSTRUC CT
I'VE NOTICE.
S,949 Frederick Sanders vs.. Emma Muegge
Marion s. c.
Hammond, John D. Muegge owned certain
lots, and for the purpose of cheating Sanders
conveyed them to one Winter, May 20, 1879
who recOnveyed them to Muegges wife. These
deeds recorded and were without consid-
Grafton In fact. Muegge had no other property.
On Oct. 6, 1875. Sanders had Judgment against
Muegge. and on May IA, 1876 the sheriff levied
execution on the judgment on the lots. and on
June 3, 1876, sold them TO Sanders for the amount
of his Judgment On June %, 1876. the sheriff
made return showing the levy and sale which
was duly recorded in the execution docket
On July 10, 1876, the Thames Loan and Trust
Company, without actual knowledge of these
facts, loaned money TO the Muegges and took
mortgage on the lots. The property was not
redeemed from the sheriffs sale. and on Jdue
IA, 1877, Sanders obtained "a deed. The ques-
ton is, whether the record of IA sheritTs return
on an execution is constructive notice in such IA
case. Conveyances made to defraud creditors
are VOID as to the latter, and the land may be
sold on execution against the debtor. If before
the creditor takes the proper steps TO avoid the
conveyance the rights of innocent parties INFER
vene, they are protected, but when the creditor
elects, In any manner provided by law, to avoid
the conveyance, IL IA as TO him as though 1t had
never been made Appellant might have brought
an action in the first instance to set the convey
ance aside, and to obtain a sale OF the property.
He could, also. as he did, have the execution on
his Judgment levied the land and have it
sold. In pursuing remedy given him by law
lie cannot be held guilty OF laches. In Maddux
VS.. Watkins, SO Ind, "A, 1t was held that the
return of a sheriff to an execution upon sale of
real estate, after its entry by the clerk in the
execution docket, was constructive notice of
its contents 10 subsequent purchaser of the
land, (See also 16 m, $780, IL Ala, $50; Is
Johns, 5l5.) Appellee was hound to take notice
of the record of such return by the sheriff.
Judgment reversed
PRACTICE-PARTIAL INSTRUCTIONS.
9,Sl9. Emanuel Fischer VS.. William NJ. Bell.
Warrlck G. G.
Franklin, Con petition for rehearing. Ap-
pellant contends that the fourth instruction TO
the jury was erroneous The instruction is an
plicable to evidence given III the case aud states