The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-02

the bonds delivered to Blasde and did not par
tieipate in any Of the representations wch procured
stated the terms OF the proposed loan TO Hayes ana
he agreed to sign the contract before the bonds should
be delivered, aud that without the contract being 50
signed by Hayes the bonds obtained by BlasdeL
then the taking Of the bonds without authority
from Marshall and wrongful and the jury
should find for the plaintiff. This instruction
erroneous. Coneeding that Basdell acted as the
recognized agent of Hayes in negotiating the loan
that circumstance did not tend to prove that
Hayes had subsequently authorized Blasdel to make
false and fraudulent representations FOR the purpose
of evadng the terms and conditions upon which If had
been agreed the loan was to be made. The pre~ump-
ton IS thai principal does not authorize ms agent 10
act wrongfuly in ordinary business transaction,
and authority conferred upon special agent to do
lawful thing cannot be construed to authorize him to
act wrongfully fraudulently in connection with
other business he to transact in the name
of his principal Judgment reversed
PRoBATING wILLs--cHANCERY PRACTICE.
1850. Malinda Hite vs. Anderson Sims. Greene
Hammond, i'm proceeding to resist the probate
of will, the court OF its motion, called jury
and submitted to them certain interrogat5ons which
they answered without returning a general verdict.
These answers show that the testaor at the time of
making his will, was of sound mind and not con-
trolled by any improper means, and was labor,
ing under no delusion with regard
70 Ihe, amount ana value OF the
property he had advanced to his children by his first
spectng the conduct of said children: but it is not
found whether this delusion related the good bad
conduct of the children. Taken altogether the an
svers rreconciabe with the finding of the court
But the tried under the chancery practice,
and in such party is not entitled matter Of
right to judgment the special findings Of
the jury. The opinion of the jury is merely advisory
and may be adopted rejected by the court in its dis
erection. However. the evidence shows conclusively,
and without conflict that the testatOr was of sound
mind when he made the will, and the finding of the
court is therefore contrary to the evidence. Judg-
ment reversed
102SS. Union School Township vs. First National
Bank Montgomery c. c. Rehearing granted.
WRITTEN Observation-Disclosures AGREEMENT
1907 Daniel Rhodes VS.. Nancy J. Jones. Mont
gomery C. c.
Elliott, J.-Appelants complaint AYERS that he was
the devisee of certain property burdened with the
maintenance and of Indiana Castor; that in an
action to set aside the will compromise
was effected whereby appellant was to be
released from said burden, and bond to be exc
cuted to that effect; that afterwafd bond was exc
cuted but appellees failed TO maintain said Indiana
Castor and she came back on appellants and in ac-
ton on said bond it held void
Held; The adjudication the bond ended the
right of action on it. The complaint shows that the
bond called for by the contract was executed and ae-
cepted by appellant and this shows a compliance with
the contract In order to show that the Judgment on
the bond is not conclusive of the whole matter APP
pelant must state fact showing why the execu-
ton OF the bond was not performance of the
tract and why it did not merge the preliminary agree
ment. In such the first contract and all negota-
TONS oral written merged in the last nstru-
ment which is deemed the expression of the contract
finally agreed upon. q Ind. i. Mag, 1879 Judg-
ment affirmed