The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-23
RECORD OF. THE COURTS.
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.


hOus lhian e. NlDldChs NHtOh Su9tiNSs
PRAcT1CE-NEw TRIAL-ExCEPTIoNs.
9,647 Asa F. Johnson VS.. Samuel N. McCul-
Tough. Whitley @. q.
Franklin, CA party who asks a new trial
must ask IL as to the whole case. q Bkf., So
90 Ind, 1877; 60 III, 291.) But where the PLAIN
TINS Judgment is dependent on the DEFENDANTS
answers of counter-c claim and set-of, the grant
ing of " trial as to the issues made by such
cOunter-claim and set-of necessarily requires
:he granting OF a new trial as TO the whole case.
Where the defendant made two motions Tor
new trial, one making the plaintiff q party ana
the other making another defendant party,
which we're decided separately, an exception
taken jointly to both decisions presents no ques-
ton. Is Ind, 400; secs. 626, 62S Il. 5. lSS1)
Judgment affirmed.
OFFICIAL BoND-BELEAsE OF SURETY
5000. City of Lafayette vs.. Dandy A. lanes.
Tippecauoe c. G.
Black, C.-Appellee was elected suporintend,,
conditioned for the faithful perform
ance of his duties, and to pay over all
moneys which should come to his hands as such
superintendent. There was at that time no or
dnance making it his duty to collect water-rates,
but afterward the Council passed an ordinance
imposing this duty on him, and he defaulted In
the sum of 81 800 for rents collected. This
requirement was not such change in the duties
OF the officer as w3uIu release the suretes on
his bond. While the condition Of the bond Is TO
be construed oeneticially for the sureties. the
construction must be such as the parties meant
IL TO have when they entered into II, and the ma
ture of the duty OF the principal and the char
acter of the obligee will be regarded as eXplana-
tory of such intent (Hurlstone on Bonds, ~;
Burge Suretyship 46; IA Md, 1907 Amy addl-
ton made to the duties of the principal will not
necessarily discharge the surety, such rs the
mere Increase OF business Of the same kind as
that contemplated by the contract. (2l n. D.
L. 100 Al Mich, 339J The bond In suit was
not an official one within the meaning of see
1928, r. S., but 1T good a common law
obligation, and these principles apply to such
bonds. Judgment reversed.
DITCH OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.
1894. Miles j. Flora VS.. Henry c. Cline
Carroll &. c.
Morris, C.-Where the proceedings to open q
ditch we're invalid for want of jurisdiction in the
board OF commissioners, but the parties affect ed
by the ditch flied statemenG in which they
waived all errors either of notice. petition or
order of the board in establishing such ditch,
and upon the faith of the promise of the defend
ant that he would pay the plaintiff for construct
Ing the ditch throu gh the defendants lana, the
plaintiff went on and performed the work, the
defendant standing by and seeing it done, and
encouraging him by his promises of payment
the defendant was liable for the value OF the
work done, although the proceedings before the
commissioners were altogether void. (36 Ind,
1855; 80 Id, 1872. Judgment affirmed.