The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-17
THE COURT RECORD.
supreme Comt-March II.
year

DECEDENTs ESTATES-INVALID TAX SALE.
Il077. John h. Hanna, administrator vs. Lewis
w. Collins Grant G.
Bichncll, c.. Cit is not necessary for defendant
who has prima facie title by virtue Of tax deed,
made in conformity to law to show anything to the
levy of taxes to meeting Of the board of cqual
zation. tSec. $3.50 r. s. When an of land
sells subject to the of certain years and makes
warranty deed therefor he is estopped to claim the
land by purchase at sale for the taxes of those years
for any taxes of which the taxes of those years
formed part A defendant neither plead nor
take advantage under the evidence of anything con
Trajectory to or IN conflict with his own warranty u
Ind 4Sl; 81 i'd, 50S) Ordinarily, in suit by the
of land sold for taxes to defeat the title of
purchaser at sale he cannot without pay
ing or rendering the taxes due. Us Ind. ISL "a
i'd, 5000 But this rule does not apply to the pro
ceedngs of administrator Of the deceased owner to
sell the land for the payment Of debts including the
taxes In such case payment or tender is required
Judgment reversed
CHANGING IGHwAYs-DEFECTIvE PETITION.
9140. Preston Conway Charles Ascherman ct
al. Ohio c. C.
Elliott J.-Where an appeal is taken in term time
the parties are brought into this court merely by prop
ery warning them in the assignment of errors. In
petition for changing highway technical accuracy in
the description of the line is not required Jescrip
ton such will enable surveyor to locate the high
way is all the law requires. 90 Ind, 5S3; So i'd,
216; 30 i'd, 1881 The petition should state the
names of the whose lands the proposed
way will be located. (34 Ind 337; II i'd. 430J 1t
should also show that the petitioners freeholders
and that six Of them reside i'll the neghborhood of the
proposed highway. Or. s, 5015 rs Ind, 1861 The
absence of such averments in the petition will not be
available in collateral attack upon the judgment but
will be sufficient for reversing the Judgment
direct appeal as in this case. Judgment reversed.
FRAUDULENT OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES EXEMPT.
1855 Margaret E. Simpkns VS.. VIM. c. Smith.
Warren c. G.
Best, Can averment in complaint on promissory
notes that the payee assigned them TO The plaintiff by
Endorsement is sufficient to show title in the plaintiff
40 Ind, 504; 3 Blkf 1922 In a complaint by
creditor to set aside conveyance fraudulent the
allegation that the debtor had other property at the
time the deed was made subject to execution, more
than the exemption allowed by law is sufficient II he
had no property except such exempt by law he
had none subject to execution within the meaning of
Ole law. az Ind. 1873; 81 i'd 92) The failure of
appellant to deny that the Endorsements were made
as averred operated admission of the averInent
and it was unnecessary to read the Endorsements in
evidence. Or. s., sec 1881 Judgment affirmed.
SALE OF LAND-sPECIFIc PERFoRNANCE-Pos-
SESSION.
1926 John P. Drum VS.. Samuel P. Stevens
Wells G. c.
Black, C.-Action by appellee for the specific per-
Torrance of parol contract convey land 1t is OBJ
jected that the complaint does not any promise
or agreement to convey. court of equity may
pei conveyance in such action, though the evil
dence does not show express agreement for the
eeution of deed. parol gift of land may he far
executed that the donee who has been put into
sion and made improvements will be entitled to de-
cree for a conveyance (36 n. Y, 1927; 40 i'd, "a
Pom. Spec. PERI, sec 1907 Where under q verbal
contract for the sale Of land possession has been
taken by the vender and thereby right of action for
specific performance of the contract accrued if
the possession be abandoned by him with intent to
surrender all right and interest acquired, the
original possession thereby to be available
past performance; but where the possession is tenn
porarily interrupted under such circumstances as in
dictate that the vendee does not intend thereby to
waive surrender his right of action, it will be
defeated thereby. Judgment affirmed
EXCEPTIONS TO INsTRUOTIoNs-PRACT
DENCE.
11126 James S. Conden vs. Sarah Morningstar
Morgan c. C.
Hammond J.-Under the former code an exception
to instructions properly taken by writing the
margin, at the close Of such instruction given or
liant attorney. But under section 535 Il. s. 1881,
such exceptions must be signed by the Judge. Where
evidence rejected depends for its pertuency upOn
other evidence the latter must be brought into the
record in order to show that the rejection OF the
offered evidence error. "a Ind, 233; 80 i'd.
mitted, question TO witness which assumes the ex
isence of such factis rightly excluded. The sustain
ing of objection to question ASKED by party of
his own witness not be deemed erroneous unless
the record shows that the trial court was Informed
what proposed to be proved by the to the
question. (6l Ind, 1885, 70 i'd, $685. Judgment af-
frmed.
The following cases were decided on Saturday,
March 10:
Oils Dennis Vaughan VS.. Cstharne Goldman ct
al Tppecanoe G. c. Reversed. collars j.
1O347 Henry Robinson ct al. VS.. John A. Glass
Clark {. G. Reversed. Elliott, J.
11lO0. H., n. A. & G. Railway Company vs.
Charles SHELTON. Washington c. c. Affirmed. Ham
1921 Hiram Hanshaw vs.. Henry Hanshaw ct
al Upton c. G. Petition for rehearing overruled
HOwk, C. j.