The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-05
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme COurt-March 4.
Hon Gao V HowE Chiaf Juatice

Hon Geo. Y. Howk Chief Justice.
! JUDICIAL sALE-CoLLATERAL ATTACK-EsToP
PEI.
1O957 John Pepper VS.. Philip Zahnsinger. Van
derburg G; G.
administrator, directing the sale of land for the
payment of debts, cannot DO collaterally mpeaehed
for mere errors Irregularities, where there is uris
dicton of the subject matter and of the But
the interest of widow in the land of her deceased
husband cannot be ordered sold to pay the debts of
the estate The court has no jurisdiction to render
such Judgment. and il is void. (6S Ind, 1866; II
| i'd, AIS; 70 i'd, 476.) But where the widow re-
quested her interest to be sold and the administrator
! widow received nearly all the purchase money
part of which she returned and the purchasers
were in possession of tho land under the deed for
than eight years, these facts warranted verdict of
estoppelas against the widow. Judgment affirmed
| ! SELLING LIQUOR TO MINoRs-AGEET.
! 11153. August Hoffner VS.. the State. Hancock
Hammond. J-Tho court charged the jury that if
an agent of the appellant in his presence and with
his knowledge and consent sold intoxicating liquor
| the prosecuting witness who was minor, appellant
would be liable the if he made the sale him
| self. This instruction was correct, and there
was some evidence tending to show that the sale was
made by bartender in appellants presence, it was
not inapphcable TO the evidence. Judgment affirmed
DECEDENTs' EsrATEs-wIDow-EsTo
| 11125. Harvey Wise VS.. Eliza Wyman Wash
ington c. @.
| Howk c. J.-Wherea widow publicly renounces
any claim 70 real estate of her deceased husband about
to be sold by the administrator and induces the pur
chaser to buy the whole estate including
her interest and with the consent of the other heirs
agrees take her interest out of other lands remain
ing unsold which were amply sufficient for the pur-
| pose, she is estopped from afterwards making any
| claim to the land sold. Il Ind, SCI, Pepper VS.
Zahnsinger, supra.l Judgment reversed
DEFAULTING MISUNDERSTANDING.
1O471; John, NJ; searcy ct al. vs., State OK rel.
| Harris Switzerland G. c.
collars, J.-Where the special school fund is over
drawn when a township trustee comes into Office, he
and his bondsmen not liable for the
hal
| for such sum. They are chargeable with the whole
amount received by him while acting under the bond
and entitled to credit for the whole amount prop
erly expended In action the bond of such trts
tee his reports to the commissioners competent
but not conclusive evidence, and his bondsmen can
avail themselves OF any error existing therein without
a reformation and without pleading mistakes (Sec.
SSH, 5812 r. S; rs Ind, 40 81 i'd, 421l I'm
| der the general denial they may show the correct
amount received. whether It was correctly stated in
| the reports not. (2l ind, 264; 30 i'd, AIS; As
i'd, &C; 40 i'd, $780, Al i'd, 154.) Judgment affirmed
FOREIGN OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF ATTORNEY
| ACT OF 1879 NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
| ADJUDICATED
11047. Isaac c. Elston VS.. Martha J. Piggott ct al
| Montgomery 9. G.
Elliott 1.-THE failure of the agent of a foreign
corporation to file power of attorney required by
the act of 1852 may be pleaded in abatement in a
foreclosure suit by the corporation; but, if not SO
pleaded, the corporation will obtain valid decree
| (54 Ind, go; So i'd, 1877; 6S i'd, 3l3) The fail
ure to file such power will not invalidate title
CURED under the decree. (2l Foreign corporations
vey real estate purchased under the decree in the alb
sence of statute prohibiting them from so doing
| Q3 Pet, 592 101 U. s, $50; 100 i'd, 55.) Al
| though foreign corporations cannot claim the
protection of The federal Constitution on the ground
of citizenship they entitled to do business until
forbidden by statute in other States than that Of their
creation. (Story Conf. Laws So 81; % Mich. 224.)
49, The act of 1879 requiring foreign corporal ions
| to in the State courts does not apply to
cases pending in the United States Courts at the time
of its enactment. To permit it to operate in such
would be to permit statute of the State to
troll the proceedings of the federal court in a case
| where jurisdiction had been rghtfully acquired
| Where suit for foreclosure thus pending by a
| foreign corporation when the law was enacted, it
could rightfuy press it to judgment and the title
| quired at the sale Hereunder valid. a. Where
brings partition suit, holding at the time deed
from assignee in bankruptcy covering the husbands
two-thirds in the land and holding, also certificate
of sale, under foreclosure embracing all the land he
is not estopped by decree rendered in the partition
suit awarding him twothrds of the land from assert
ing the title subsequently acquired by deed executed
paramount to the certificate of sale against the
wife of the bankrupt decree in partition does not
create title, but merely possession as Ind,
| 1868: II i'd, 237J The purchaser at bankrupt
sale IS not tenant in common with the bankrupts
wife in such to prevent his buying the
ticate Of sale Issued in the foreclosure suit against