The Indianapolis journal., 1884-02-13
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS
Supreme Court-Feb. IL.
Hon. Geo. V. Howk. Chief Justice.
CE-coNTRTBIrTORY NFGLI-


Hon. Geo. V. Howk. Chief Justice.
APPEAL-PRACTICE-CoN NEGLI-
GENCE.
11129. L., N. A. & c. Railway Company vs.. Alex.
Loclridge. Clay c. c.
collars, J.-After both parties have appeared in
the court to which the case was taken by change of
venue and gone through trial there, it IS too late to
raise the point of appeal that the court was without
jurisdiction because the record does not contain the
transcript from the former court showing the change
of venue (25 Ind 80, $40; 81 i'd, 341) Where
negligence is the issue it must be case of unmixed
negligence, and this must be made to appear, either
by avernent that the plaintiff was without fault,
or by such statement of facts show that he was
Railroads, 434, 435; Wharf Neg, section 877.) The
complaint was insufficient in this respect. Judgment
reversed.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES BILL OF Ex-
CEPTI0NS.
11139. L., n A. s. c. Railway Company vs.. Jas.
Howk, c. J-Where a complaint for killing stock
alleged that the railroad was not fenced
the track and where said horses were
killed is indefinite and uncertain to time but the
objection cannot be reached by demurrer for want of
specific. (73 Ind, 261; "a i'd. 146 81 i'd, 81 There
is in the record what purports to be bill of excep-
tons containing the evidence, signed by the judge
within the time given but there is file mark or re-
cita of any kind which shows that the bill was in the
trial court within the time given, or, indeed at any
time. Without such showing the bill cannot be con
sidered as in the record. (Loy VS.. Loyi 30 lnd)
Judgment affirmed
DEED OF INFANT MARRIED woMAN-DIsAF-
F1RDtANCE.
1908. Darius Applegate VS.. Elizabeth Conner.
Hamilton G. G.
Hammond, J.-Prior to the act of April 13, 1866,
the deed Of infant wife was not valid unless as
sented to by her father her mother, the judge of
the Circuit Court. {R. s.. secs. 2939-29A2.) Since
Sept. 10, 1881, married women have been bound by
estoppels in pals. (Sec. 5117) But as the law
stood before that time who, during infancy and
subject to estoppei in pals nor compelled to disarm
her deed until the removal of tho disability of CO.
yertqre as well as that of infancy (96 Ind s7
estoppel were shown to have occurred after Sept
49, 1881, by appellants answer, the demurrer to it
was rightly sustained. Judgment affirmed.
FoRoIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER-PRACTICE
1913. Filander T. yess VS.. The State Tippeca.
Niblack, J-Appellant had obtained Judgment
against appellee for the recovery of possession of
court and fled bond. Appellant being advised by
his attorneys that the bond not sufficient that the
judgment still in force, and that he could legally
have writ of possession. This he caused to issue,
and in the absence of the appellee officer put him
in possession of the premises, which he maintained
and forcbly kept the appellee out. She then brought
this prosecution against him for forcble entry and
detainer under section 1872 r. S.
Held The writ of possession was issued on judg-
was regular upon its face It therefore conferred ai.
thority upon the officer to put appellant in possession
and there was evidence that appellant
acted in bad faith the writ afforded him the pro-
lection which it conferred the officer. Is Waits A.
and D., 20; id 112 So Ind, 112.) If the writ was
in fact either wrongfuly impro7idently issued APP
pellee had adequate civil remedy, Such prosecu-
ton cannot bo maintained for the purpose of trying
the title to the property upon which the alleged force
used. q Arch. Or. Pl., 1885; Moore's Cr. L.,
sec. 749; 81 Ind, Bill Judgment reversed.
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD oREDIToRs-JoINT AC-
TION-INJUNCTION.
1910. Marshall Field ct al George Holzman ct
al. Miami G. C.
Elliott, J.-Action by number of creditors of
Holman alleging that he and the other defended ITS
had conspired together to buy goods and deaud the
sellers out of payment therefor, by placing
the goods beyond the reach of creditors 1t is clear
that such conspiracy is gross fraud The property
liable for the claims of all the creditors, and they
had common right to prevent its removal from the
jurisdiction of the court and to have it subjected to
the payment of their claims While their claims were
separate their right to relief was joint and
titled to unite as plaintiffs. (R S.. 202 Pom Rem.
sec. 266, 267, 269; Dan. Ch Pr, 235; II Ind,
291 20 i'd, 32S) 1t was not necessary that appel
ants should have obtained judgments at law for their
claims before joining in such action. Under the
code judgment may be taken for damages and an in
junction awarded in the same action. (53 Ind; $50;
IA CAL, 354; 80 i'd, 590) The court erred in sup
pressing the deposition of Max Silverburg. He and
Louis FEEDER were proper defendants to the action,
having participated in the fraud and notice 60 them
sufficient in taking their dispositions. For this
error the judgment is reversed