The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-27
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme COurt-March &c.
Hon. Geo. V. Howk. Chief Justice.


NOTE SECURED BY OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
10560 Alice NJ Hamilton Jonathan Brown
ing Monroe G. G.
Hammond, J.-Acton by sppellees to recover pos
session of horse In her crosscomplaint the appel
liant sought to foreclose mortgage the property,
executed to Daniel ID. Hamilton to payment OF
note She aNerred that the mortgage had been as
signed to her, bit there allegation that the
note had been transferred to her The assignment or
a mortgage without the assignment of the debt trans
fers nothing to the assignee q Ind 40; % i'd, 50;
3S i'd, 323D The note and mortgage are not copied
in the bill of exceptions is reference therein made
to the page of the transcript where they may be found
They are not therefore in the record in any manner
provided by statute. (R S, sec. 626 . Ind. Law
Mag, l31) Judgment affirmed.
PUBLIC HIGHwAY-oCcUPANCY
11140. L.. n. A & c. Railway Company VS..
Charles w. White. Parke c. G.
the, value q stock killed on appellants
for distance Of two miles on an old State road which
completed, the right to do so being given
the company by the county commissioners Appel
way the other portion parallel with its track peng
used by the public, and that it could not fence the
track at the place complained Of The facts that the
commissioners gave the company the right to lay ITS
track on the road that work done on the road
afteward that there has been acquiescence in the
companys occupancy by all parties for more than
thirty years and that at certain points owing to cuts
and fills the company necessarily occupied the entire
road sufficient to Justify the jury in finding that
the old road abandoned by the public and ceased
to be public highway. OBJ Ind go Judgment
affirmed.
ATTORNEY AND cLIENT-NEGLIGENCE OF AT
ToRNEY.
1O282 Maya. Sharp Daniel L. Mofitt Foun'
Niblacl, J.--Complaint by appellant to enjoin the
sale of property Judgment rendered against
her, alleging that she had employed an
attorney to defend the action who promised plead
her overture but negligently failed to do so, and
through his neglect allowed judgment to be taken
fho oft
and did not know of the Judgment until after its rem
dition 1t is well settled that the negligence of an at
torney is the negligence of his client and that relief
will not be granted by reason of such negligence
Freeman Judgt.. sec. 112; Weeks Attys, sec.
294; II Ind. 477; IS i'd, 416; 81 id, 1901 Judg-
ment affirmed.
FIRE ACKNOWLEDGMENT INcUMBERED.
11116. John NJ. Leonard VS.. American Insurance
Company. Owen C. @.
Howk c. IA policy of insurance against loss by
fire issued upon written application wherein it is
ORANGES, when IN fact IT was neumoered CANNOT De
enforced. (SS Ind, SIS; Is i'd, 352; % i'd, $500
In such the fact that the company knew of the
membranes, and that the insured was not in
formed that the charter OF the company pre-
vented it from insuring such property un;;
was expressed in the policy will not validate the in
surance. Whenever the charter of insurance com
pany prescribes the mode in which any act shall be
done and declares that if it be not done the policy
shall be void, the company cannot waive the perform
anee of such act in the prescribed mode e3S Conn,
lS1; Mich, 4O(; % N IL, u II NO. 90 IN
der the provisions of its charter the appellee became
member Of the company by accepting his policy,
and as such concluded and bound by the pro.
visions of its charter. He thus had the means of
knowing and was bound to know, that his policy was
void. In such a case there be estoppel against
the company. (4O Ind 424 60 i'd, 537; ~ i'd,
475b Judgment affirmed.
CHANGING LOCATION OF NOTWITHSTANDING
TON.
1852. James NJ. Erwin VS.. Richard A. Fulk ct al.
Monroe G. G.
Elliott IAN injunction will lie to restrain the
execution of order changing the location of a
highway where the order is void. And where
the petition does not define the width of the
proposed highway it is absolutely void. % Blkf.,
462; i'd 2OS 9 Ind, 103; So i'd, Ga A com
plant which AYERS that the proposed change will cut
the plaintiffs land into irregular shape; will divide
the orchard into two parcels, and will change the
frontage of his house and barn. shows that injury
will be inflicted that cannot fully measured in dam
ages and that will affect the Just enjoyment of the
property in the future. In such injunction is
the proper remedy. as Ind, Ross VS.. Thompson 2
Ind. L. NJ, 339.) 1t is not necessary to show that
the threatened injury would be reparable IA Ind,
24S) The court erred in sustaining the demurrer to
the complaint. Judgment reversed.