The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-15
SUPREME C0URT-FEB. IA.

1O81s. Stephen A. R. Beach VS.. Samuel Carter.
Fountain @. G.
Black. C.-Under an ASSIGNMENT that the court erred
in its conclusions of law in a special finding the CUES
tons arising like those decided in National Bank
Carter, 50 Ind, By, and upon the authority of
that case the judgment is affirmed.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.
| 1882. Mary Belaley VS. Remegius Behlley. Har-
Elliott J.-Appellant'5 complaint seeks recovery
upon antenuptia contract and shows that prior
to this action she had obtained divorce from the APP
pellee Questions concerning marital well
property rights growing out of the marriage relation
deemed to be qdudcaed by the decree in the suit
So id, 1914 Shoulders Dom Rel, third ed, 2219
Where complaint states facts constituting of
action but also states facts which constitute defense
| it will be held bad on demurrer. as N. Y, 211)
Judgment affirmed.
OWNERSHIP OF CRoPs-EvIDENcE.
! 10876. zinlri Simpson VS.. James W. DeHaven ct
Best C.-Shoddy, the son-in-aw of appellant lived
the latters farm ndraised certain crops The EVIL
dence shows that he was not employed by appellant
that he lived upon the products of the farm insured
them in his name, paid taxes on them and sold
them at his pleasure using the proceeds that there
was no agreement between him and appellant, except
that he was furnish the latter from time to time
such part as he requested. The jury found that APP
peant owned one half the corn and hay and tvothirds
of the wheat, and that Shoddy owned the rest. This
verdict cannot be disturbed on the evidence Judg
ment affirmed.
BOUNDARY LINE-ANCIENT MoNUMENTS-EvI-
DENCE.
| II14S. Francis Wingler VS.. Obediah Simpson.
! Washington G. O.
Franklin Can agreement between adj oining land
owners TO division boundary line is binding if
based on consideration. If not based upon a con
sideration but is acted upon possession taken and
improvements made up to the line, 1t becomes binding
when inequitable to change it. 90 Ind, 261.) The
location of division line between two landowners,
| aequiesced in and acted upon for twenty years be-
! comes binding as the true line q Ind, ABB; i'd,
$40, As i'd, 46S 80 i'd, 49, Parol evidence is adj
Missile to prove the former existence identity and
location of ancient monuments since removed and the
acts of the interested parties contemporaneous with
such landmarks may be proved in like manner. Such
evidence is admissible in determining the correctness
| of survey. Judgment affirmed
| JUDGE PRO TEM.-DELEGATING AUTHORITY
RECORD.
1031I. Alex. Reid VS.. Jesse A. Mitchell. Lawrence
| G. G.
Howl c. J.-Complaint by appellant to have a
Judgment vacated The complaint alleges that in the
original case Judge Wilson appointed Judge Robinson
to try the that after part of the evidence had
been heard by the jury Judge Robinson left the bench
and appointed Mr.. Voris as judge, who presided at
the trial and received the verdict of the jury and ad
iourned court until certain day at which time
| Judge Robinson resumed the bench and rendered
Judgment on the verdict 1t is not averred that these
facts shown by the record in the case hence 1t
must be presumed that the record is regular and that
none of these facts are shown upon its face. Where
| it is sought to impeach record by alleging facts
dehors the record the attack is a collateral and
cannot be maintained (57 Ind, 80; 70 i'd,
$40; IS i'd 471) If the record fails TO show that
Judge Robinson absent at any time, or that Mr..
Voris presided judge at any time, appellant
cannot procure the vacation of the judgment by aleg
the record. The demurrer to the complaint
rightly sustained Judgment affirmed.
Elliott j.. dissenting thinks the proceedings
coram non JUDGE and void. Judicial authority
not be delegated The right to appoint judge pro
empore is vested in the judge of the court and the
person whom he appoints cannot delegate his authori-
ty. The failure of a judge pro tenn. to conduct the
trial returns the to the regular Judge (21 Ind,
! 118; 46 i'd, 26S; so i'd, 410) When Judge Robin
son abandoned the the judge by whom he APP
pointed was reinstated with full jurisdiction, and
Voris had authority to act judge The investi
cation goes back of the record If it appears that
there was no Judge the question Of what the record
shows does not show is not of controlling import
ance There can be record without a court COM
petent to make one
Niblack, j., concurs with Elliott.
The following cases were also decided, abstracts of
which will be published tomorrow:
10164. Samuel Ferry VS.. VIM. Shively. Marshall
c. G. Affirmed Colerick, G.
1878. David Houser vs. rel Lautz Hunting
| ton G. G. Affirmed. Hammond, j.
10377. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany VS.. Hermann. Vanderburg c. C. Affirmed
| collars, J.
| s296. Adam Retiring VS.. Martin Hillabeld. Kos
| eiusko c. c. Reversed. Black, @.
| 1880. Isaac Watson VS.. Francis Cransora. How
l ~