The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-12
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS
Supreme Court-Jan. n.

Hon. Geo. " HowE. Chief Justice.
109l1. Samuel b. Bushnell VS.. Vim. S. Bush
nell. Jasper c. c.
collars, J.-Appellant is the same person who
was the plaintiff and appellant in Bushnell, adj
ministratOf, VS.. Bushnell, No. 1922, decided this
term. In the principles involved the cases are
substantially alike, both calling in question the
suficiency of the evidence. On the authority
of the latter ease the Judgment is affirmed.
FREE GRAvEL-RoAD coNTRACToR-MANDATE.
lob. Phillip Matter VS.. Jos. w. Stout, au-
ditor. Grant c. G.
Hammond, Under sec. 5772, R. s, an APP
peal lies to the Circuit Court from the settlement
of the county board with a contractor for work
done under the act of March 3. 1877, relating to
free turnpike roads, (Secs. 1901 to BOB, II. S.
and from the allowance made to him upon such
settlement. But if the person appealing is not a
party to the proceeding, the appeal will not be
allowed unless he files with the auditor an aft
davit showing that he is aggrieved by the de-
cision, has an interest in the matter decided, ex-
plicitly setting it forth. (See. 5772- In an action
of mandate by such contractor to require the
auditor to issue an order on the treasurer for the
amount allowed him by the board, an answer,
setting up an appeal from the board by a person
not a party to the proceedings must give the
subsistence of the affidavit filed by such appellant,
in order that it may appear that he had such an
interest in the matter as to entitle him to appeal.
ga 256. The mere allegation that the appel
liant was a citizen and taxpayer of the county
was not sufficient to show that he had an inter
est in the matter. Only those who have lands
assessed for the Improvement have such an in
terest as entities them to appeal. Judgment re
versed.
MARRIED woMEN-coNTRAcr OF sURETYsHIR.
10601. Mary E. Allen VS.. John Davis. Grant
c.. G.
Franklin, Con Sept. q, 1881, appellant and
her husband executed a note for the husbands
debt and a mortgage to secure it on land owned
by the wife. In an action to foreclose the court
made no personal Judgment against appellant,
but held that she was bound by the mortgage.
This was error. Sec. 5l19, r. S, provides that
any contract of suretyship entered into by a
married woman shall be void as to her. There
was no evidence tending to sustain the finding.
Judgment reversed.
PRoMIssoRY NoTE-AoCoRD AND SATISFACTION.
1876. Henry Shade VS.. William Creviston,
ct al. Huntington {. G..
Elliott. J.-To an action by the assignee of a
non-negotiable note, an answer that the maker
paid the aSSlgnor in money, work, goods, lum-
Der, chattels, and real estate" a certain sum
which he accepted in full satisfaction of said
debt before notice of the assignment, is q good
answer of accord an satisfaction. An answer
also that the aSSlgnor of the note and mortgage,
under foreclosure bought in the property and
agreed to release the maker from further liabil-
ity if he would not redeem from such sale, and
that in pursuance of such agreement the maker
did not redeem, is good. The right of a debtor
to redeem is a valuable one and its surrender
constitutes a good consideration. t84 Ind ,567.
In the absence of any confidential relations exist
ing between the parties, representations OF value
are regarded as mere expressions of opinion and
do not constitute fraud. go Ind. 524; 90 N. Y,
273; S. c., 43; Am. Rep, 16S.) The seeondrin-
%struetion given was, therefore, erroneous. nJudg
ment reversed.
The following cases were also decided, alb
stracts of which will appear hereafter:
Daniel Paulus VS.. Melissa Latta. Rush. G, c.
Bicknell, G. Reversed as to Paulus. .rfs
Julia A. Williams VS., Alfred Yinging. Della
ware G.. G.. Best. c.. Affirmed. l3,.
Lavina Hoke VS.. George Apologize. Harrison
c. c.. Reversed. Bicknen, G. c..
Ed W. High VS.. Shelby County. Shelby G. C.
Affirmed. Colerick, c..
VIM. Beatty VS.. Mary Barnett. Brown G. c.
Affirmed. Black, c.
Martin Meehan VS.. John B. Wiles. Hamilton
G. c.. Affirmed. Franklin, c.
Robert McCord VS.. Chas. L.. Thompson. Knox
G.. G.. Affirmed. Black, G..
Mechanics Building Association VS.. Jonathan
Whiteacre. Wayne G. c. Rehearing denied.
VIM. B. Thomas VS.. Samuel B. Mathes. Re-
| baarinU dnniad .f