The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-07
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme COurt-April 3.
Hon. Geo. V. Howk. Chief Justice.
IN c..r, r,-n, r,nr,A L c. nnN.rn


PRACTICE-APPEALs-BO
1856 William G. Mitchell clerk VS.. Robert c.
Gregory Tippecanoe $. G.
Niblack, J.-Under section GIL of r. S. an appeal
after the close of the term does not stay proceedings
in the court below unless order for such stay be
granted by this court and such order is not complete
until supersedeas bond is filed in accordance with the
order A similar rule of construction ought to be APP
Piled to appeals taken during the term under section
63S 1t is true that the section authorizes the court
to grant extension of time within which appeal
bond may be given but that does not modify the dec
aratiOn that the appeal shall operate to stay proceed
ings upon appeal bond being fled" 1t is the bond
in both instances which eonsummates the appellant 5
right to stay of proceedings and ties the hands OF
the appellee. (See Is Ind, 219; % i'd, "a; Al i'd
531.) Judgment affirmed.
COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY AwARDs-PARoL
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. IN PLEADINGs.
BIS James F. Boots VS.. Richard NJ. Canine
Montgomery G. G.
Elliott, J.-When this case was here before (5S
Ind, 400 it was held that the award sued on was
common law, and not statutory award 1t is claimed
that the filed since shows that the award is
statutory No bonds mentioned merely bind the
parties to alEde the award distinctive feature of
statutory arbitration is that the submission shall be in
writing, and bond to secure performance of the
award is not the written agreement contemplated by
the statute. Although the award states that the
agreement to submit was in writing parol evidence
competent to show that 1t was oral one. Such
recital is not the statement of any material part Of
the award and forms no part of il when considered as
an instrument of evidence. (Morse Arb, 529;
Campb., I'D The trial court did not in permit
ting appellee to read in evidence answers filed by
appellants in the case, although they had been
afterwards superseded by amended answers. These
had stood through the first trial
and until the case reversed by this court. The
question is not to the weight of the evidence but
as to its competency and relevancy. "a Ind, 15S;
i'd, 25S; 80 i'd, 2O5) The code has adopted the
equity practice and treats peadings stating facts
and not fctions We are therefore to look to the
chancery practice, and pleadings in chancery are
always admissible in evidence. Butler, Nisi Prus,
235, 237; 2 Johns. CHI, 1852; BlHf 35; 100 Mass,
VIII a6r ed is
that they presumed to state facts There is still
stronger reason for admitting the pleadings in evil
dence under the code system because it is provided
not only that they shall state facts but that all fc-
tons in pieadings are abolished" q Ind 347; 81
o., St., 553; 16 Kans 3SS; II Ia, 176; % Wis,
241; A N Y, 1863 A party may introduce an an
swer in evidence although it has been Withdrawn.
t27 Hun, 80; IL Abb. Pr R.. 319.) The with
drawal of admission once made cannot de-
stroy its competency though it is proper to
show the withdrawal and all attendant crcum-
stances for the purpose of determining the weight to
be attached to the admission 6S Ind, 219 81 id,
345i SO N. Y, 81 46 i'd, 418; 70 i'd, 543) Judg-
affirmed.