The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-21
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court-Feb. go.
Hon. William A. Woods, Chief Justice.
FRAUDULENT coNvEYANCE-PLEADINC


CoNvEYANCE-PLEADING.
1888. silas r. Nugen VS.. First National Bank,
etc. Henry C. g.
Woods, G. J-Action by appellee to set aside
alleged fraudulent conveyances of real and per-
sOnal property. The complaint is not bad on de-
murrer for want of a bill of particulars Of the
personal property, because it is, at least, sutii-
cient as to the real estate. It sufficiently alleges
the insolvency of the debtors, both at the time
of the conveyance and at the commencement of
the suit. The bill of exceptions purports to con-
tam all the evidence, hut shows that letters and
other documents were read which are not in the
bill The evidence is, therefore. not before the
court. go Ind. 227) Judgment affirmed.
PRoMIssoRY NoTE.-NEGLIGENcE IN SIGNING.
9,27s. James Baldwin VS.. Chester BarrOws.
Putnam, C., c.
Elliott, J.-Appellee signed the note upon re-
presentations that it was au order for medicines.
He was able to read, and his wife, who could
read, was also present, but he did not read the
note nor ask her TO read 1t. This was such
negtlgance as will render the note valid IN the
hands of a bona fide purchaser without notice.
~ Ind, 80; rs Id, 1913; 70 i'd, 533; So i'd, 425;
sc i'd, 1863 Judgment reversed.
NoTE-NEGLIGENT SIGNING.
$3.50. Danial W. Ye~gley VS., Nancy Webb.
Montgomery, c. 9.
aowk, faction by appellant as indorsee of
a note executed by appellee. Answer that two
Ind, and contracted to put a lightning rod on
her house for the sum OF SO, andithe DOte WIS
executed for such supposed sum; that she was
una bic to read writing, and that there was no
one at her house VINO could read, that her
nearest neighbors lived a quarter of a mile ava
and she did not have time TO go and
get them TO read the note for her. etc,
The note in suit was for $65.25
This answer did not show sufficient diligence on
the part of the appellee to render the note void.
(See As Ind, 436; 50 i'd, 49,; GO i'd, 30l; 70 i'd
533; 70 i'd, S0) There is no law in this State
which prohibits an attorney, whOisals0 d notary
public, from administering an oath 10 his client.
Judgment reversed.
REAL EsTATE-JUDGMENT LIENs-IMPRovEMENTs.
10,O24. Chas. Taylor VS.. John Morgan. Hunt
lngt0n c. G.
Houds, c.. J.-Appellant alleged that he had
ments of the value of 1850 on it; that there
were two Judgments against it of which he had
no knowledge; that 1t was sold on the first judg-
Inent, aud from thls sale was redeemed by the
holder of the second Judgment, who was about
TO sell the properly under his Judgment. Prayer
for an injunction. The complaint does not
allege That the purchaser at the first
sale had notice of appellants equity,
or that the appellee had notice thereof when he
redeemed from the sale. Where equities are
equal the law takes its course. GA Ind, 81; 81
Id, SOC; SO ID, 1921 In such a case, however,
the lmprover OF property cannot claim 10 have
acted without notice of judgment liens. The re-
cords constitute notice of which he is bound to
take cognizance, and that the lien will take with
have chosen to erect. 90 Ind, 514; As i'd. 329:
54 ILL.,, 1907 Judgment affirmed.
MISUNDERSTANDING sCoPE-IMPERTINENT AL
LEGATIONS.
9,402. Peter Platter VS.. City of Seymour.
JdthbOh ~ "
The theory upon which the complaint proceeds
Is that appellant has a right OF action for min
ries resulting from the wrongful construction
of Il ditch in a highway lying outside of the
corporate limits Of the city. The texture
and drift of the complaint plainly show
that the cause of action intended to be pleaded
is not one of trespass but of consequential dam
ages resulting from the construction of a public
work by a municipal corporation. A pleading
is to be construed according to its general scope,
and is not to be controlled by detached and iso-
lated (82 Ind. 307; ~ i'd, 425: 70
i'd, 1lS; II i'd, 363J A municipal corporation
Is not responsible forl consequential injuries re-
shifting fIom the careful and skillful improve
tnent of a public street Martinsville VS.. Shir-
ley, this term; 46 Iowa, 65S; s. @. 90, Am, 1S2J
II il could be held that a trespass was charged,
the utmost that conld be claimed would be nomI-
nal damages for a technical trespass, and right to
nominal damages will not warrant Ire verRal.
~ Ind, 81; 40 i'd, 146; IT i'd, 74J Judgment
affirmed.