The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-09
NOVEMBER 8,
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. CoNTRAoT-sTArUTE OF
FRAUDS

FRAUDS.
1907. Daniel NJ. Butt vs.. William Butt. Wa
bash c. c.
Hammond, J.-Appellant's land, worth $40, 900,
was sold under foreclosure of mortgage and the
certificate of purchase assigned by the mort
gagee to Shirk the place for the assgnee's name
in the certificate being left blank. Before the
year for redemption had expired the appellee
bought the certificate from Shrk. who was to
Insert the appe1lee's name therein upon his pay
ment OF certain debts to Sbirk The appellee
told appellant OF this arrangement, and stated
that he would extend the time for redemption
for six years from the date OF sale if appellant
would pay Interest on the money. This agree
ment was oral. After the year had expired APP
pelee obtained a deed, took possession of the
land, and denied appellants right TO redeem it.
and the latter brought this action to redeem the
land. A demurrer TO his complaint was
talned. Contracts within the statute of frauds
are merely voidable, and when so far executed
that the parties cannot be placed in statu quo
they become binding. The contract here was
not Immoral nor against public policy In
relying upon the contract and allowing
the time fixed by law for redemp-
tion TO expire, the appellant not
guilty OF laehes. COnceding that the appellee
had the legal right to repudiate the contract he
could not affect appellants right to redeem
within reasonable time thereafter. e B. Mon,
261, 452; 10 i'd, 8; see, also. 70 Ind, 210; II
Ia. 562 So i'd, SO; AS i'd, 1881 Judgment re-
versed.
SALE OF LIQUOR WITHOUT LICENSE.
1928. VIM. G. Dudley vs. the State. sulli-
van c. g.
Howk. J.-Appellant was prosecuted for a sale
Il
on March IL, 1888 Appellant had given notice
that he would apply for license at the March
term of the commissioners court, ana filed his
petition and bond; the county board granted
him a license for one year from March 5, 1873,
and on March %, when he paid the fee, the
the license was duly issued 10 him. The indiet-
ment was returned on March "a, 1883. 1t has
never been held that the issue of a license would
constitute good defense to prosecution, pre-
ylously instituted and then pending. for an Of
Tense committed between the time of the date
of the order granting the license and the date of
such license, even though the license in terms
covers the date OF such offense. Us Ind, 1909
Judgment affirmed.
MISUNDERSTANDING STOCK.
1882. L., N. A. e. c. Railway Company VS..
Julius Quade. Jasper c. C.
Niback, G. faction by the appellee for
stock killed appellants railroad. 1t is
averred that the animals we're killed at place
where the road was not securely fenced, and
that the place where they entered upon tine
road was one where the company were required
by law TO fence their road, and where it could
have been fenced. These allegations do not
amount to an averment that the road was not
securely fenced where the animals went upon
it. They may have gone upon the road at
place where It was securely fenced and been
killed where 1t was not 50 fenced. in that Case
the company would not be liable. go Ind, 40;
80 i'd, 1924; SO i'd, 447.) The demurrer TO the
complaint should nave been sustained. judy
ment reversed.
EaRECLoSURE-JUNIoR LIENHoLDERs.
9,767. George Woodwork VS.. Jacob Zlmmer-
man. Noble C. c.
H1iiiotb, Ss-N mere party Claiming al interest
in real estate is made defendant in suit to
foreclose mortgage alleged to be the senior
one, and is asked TO assert his interest, he
do so in that suit or the decree will conclude
him. Zurich VS.. Drieschen, 89 Ind) In such q
suit the complaint need not set out specifically
the interests of the junior ienhelders, The gen
eral averment that they ara made parties to an
swer to their respective interests is sufficient
"a Ind, 81; 70 Id. 1928; so i'd. 1919 1t has
been decided that under the code the question
of priOrities may be settled in foreclosure pro-
ceedings. go Ind, 410; 81 i'd, $685. 83 i'd, $3.50
Judgment affirmed