The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-03
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Comt-April 2.
Hon. Geo. V. Howk. Chief Justice.

sURETY-NoTICE TO SUE PRINCIPAL.
r, 1917. Edmund Cochran vs.. Robert E. Orr.
HowIl G. 1.-THE mere neglect or failure of the
holder of note to the principal in the absence Of
the notice in writing required by statute will not dis
charge the surety from liability the contract 90
Ind. 15j; 90 i'd. ass: II i'd 3l9) And the fact that
another surety on the note had given such notice to
the holder and the same had been complied with by
the holder bringing suit within reasonable time. viii
not excuse the first surety from giving notice,
lease him from liability ON the contract. Judgment
affirmed.
FRAUDULENT OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.
1922. Thos. Andrews vs.. Geo. w. Flanagan ct
al. Cass c. c.
Hammond, c. ITO authorize the setting aside of
a conveyance as fraudulent the evidence must show
that the grantor at the time of making it. did not
have enough other property subject to execution to
pay his debts and that the convey,
was either without consideration, or that
the grantee accepted il with knowledge of the grant
ors fraudulent purpose e Ind H. Mag, 300 These
facts not so clearly proved by the evidence in
TINS case as to authorize reversal of this judgment
Judgment affirmed.
CLEBKS-POwER TO FIX BAIL.
1869. Joseo Gregory rel VIM. H. Gudgel
Elliott 1.-THE question presented in this is
whether the statute empowering county clerks to fix
bail in of persons accused of crime is constitu-
tona Clerks are ministerial officers, and if the power
to fix bail is judicial one it cannot he conferred upon
them go Ind, 1913; 70 i'd. 373; % i'd. 427; II i'd
369) His Honor reviews at length the authorities
the subject of admitting to bail, and finds that it is
judicial act. a Black. Com. 297; l Steph. Or. L.,
L H..
% i'd. 81; 30 id. So; II i'd. 42S: 81 i'd, SD The
officer fixing the bail must determine whether the of
Tense is bailabe, and what will viii
not be excessive bail in each par
ticglar case, Approving and accepting
pau after It mas been liked by competent authority is
other ministerial officer but determining the amount
of bail is very different thing from accepting bonds
in where the statute prescribes what shall I've
done and what the character and penalty of the bond
shall be- In such there is exercise of judicial
powers but simply the performance of a ministerial
act The clause of section 1854 Of the statute which
assumes to invest clerks with power to fix bail must
be held void Judgment reversed.
MARRIED woMAN-RIGHT To SUE ALoNE-PRAC-
1928. William W. Mills vs. Martha Winter.
Montgomery G. G.
Black, Can action brought by married woman
for deceit in procuring transfer of her separate prop
erty is action concerning her separate property,
within the meaning of the statute, and she may
without joining her husband. 1t is the uni
set aside rulings of the trial court unless
they clearly appear to be erroneous and for the pur
pose of unfolding the judgment to indulge every
reasonable presumption in favor Of the ruling. In
such cases the party excepting must to it that the
bill of exceptions afrmatveiy shows the ruling to
have been wrong Judgment affirmed.
DECEDENPs' EsTATEs-CLAISts-PLEA
Ills. Simeon Stapp VS.. Charles +. Messeke ad-
ministrator. Bartholomew G. c.
Bicknell, G. C.-The first paragraph Of claim filed
tors of Hugh Snider's estate $500, the amount al
lowed the claimant by law as widow of Frederick
Snider alleging that said Hugh Snider when he died
Frederick, and that the administrators of Hugh
Snider took the property and sold part of the
estate This sufficient. claim against a dece
dents estate is sufficient if il states the nature of the
demand, the amount demanded and enough to
bar another action therefor t52 Ind, 400;
81 i'd; 293 81 i'd 500 The second
The latter alleges that the claimant entitled to
onethird of her deceased husbands real estate by de
tba info
thereof for five years after her husbands death, at
$500 per year. Defendants interstate was liable to
the claimant for the rent of her land and the filing of
the claim was a sufficient demand az Ind, $40;
IL i'd, IT, Judgment affirmed.
CONSERVING wILLs-'CHILDREN."
10707. Samantha J. Cummings Thomas Plum
Colerick, C.-The will of Henry Pierson provided
that his executor should distribute the proceeds Of his
estate among my children living and the children of
my deceased children if living at the time, "
the children of Sophia A. Plumner, deceased. to
ceive the portion that she would have received if
living" Appellants are grandchildren of Mrs. Plum,
mer, and claim that the word children in the will
included also grandchildren. There is no expression
in the will indicating that the word children
than its ordinary significance. and by the use
of the words, - living at the time, it is apparent
that the testaor intended to contne the distribution
to the children of his deceased children who might be
then living. (See Jervis Wills. 147 Redf
Wills, Is; $ Paige, 81 104 Mass, 1885, SO Penn,
AIS. Judgment affirmed
The following were also decided abstracts of which
will be given tomorrow;
10927. Corbin VS.. Goddard Marshall c. c. At
i1med Franklin G.
10959. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company vs..
WileA Allen c. C. Reversed. Black, C.
1928. Mayhem VS.. Burns Allen c. c. Affirmed.
Bicknell, G. c.
1920. C. & w. NJ. Railway Company VS.. Snard.
LaPorte C. c. Affirmed. collars J.
1864. Butler vs.. Moore. DecaturC.C. Rehear-
ing denied.
11143. National Bank vs. Carey. Tippecanoe C.
C. Rehearng denied