The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-14
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
supreme Court-nIareh 1e.

the deed should be set aside the mortgage might be
foreclosed in his favor To this it was answered that
the mortgage without consideration, and was
taken by said William b. when the mortgager in
solvent, and known by him to be insovent. Upon
the issue thus made the finding for the plaintiffs,
both on the complaint and the cross-eompaint There
was, therefore, no in rendering Judgment that
the deed be set aside and the property sold free of any
claim of said mortgage. judgment affirmed.
APPEAL BY ONE JOINT DEFENDANT.
10964 William Flood ct al VS.. Ansel Joyner ct
al. LaPorte c. G.
labor in cutting and stacking hay. The first
half of the contract price paid
before suit and the evidence is conflicting to when
the other half was to be paid In such cases the YER
dict viii not be disturbed by this court Where iudg
ment is rendered against two defendants and only one
moves for a new trial and appeals to this court he
cannot take advantage of any error that may have
been committed against his co-defendant. Judgment
affirmed.
SOLDIERS NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. PROM
1926. Thomas NJ. Hackleman Henry county.
Henry c. C.
Hammond J-Appellant alleged in his complaint
that in 1862 the appellee made order offering
tain bounties to all soldiers who should enlist in two
companies of the Sixty ninth regiment of Indiana vol
unteers; that appellant enlisted for service in OF
said companies, but without his consent,
tered into the Eightyfourth regiment. In order to
recover 1t would be necessary Tor appellant TO prove
that he accepted the offer of the board, and en-
listed before said two companies were full;
that he intended to go into of said companies,
and against his will put into said Eighty fourth
regiment. AS his claim could only be made out by
the help of oral evidence his claim rested partly in
writing and partly in Pro In such the six years
statute of limitations applies. a. Ind, 553D The
second and third paragraphs of reply averred that the
board of commissioners within six years before suit,
had promised and agreed to pay the claim The board
could not bind the county by such promise without
making record thereof and record is averred
the promises presumed to have been nade orally
and the county is not bound thereby az Ind 553;
81 i'd, III; 81 i'd, 257 SO i'd, $3.50 Judgment af
irmed
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Observation-Disclosures
ALIUNDE.
1881. Henry A. Lauman Herman D. Croker.
Elkhart G. c.
Best C.-Appellants claim the land in controversy
by title acquired through mortgage and applies claim
it through a deed executed subsequent to the mort
gage by the mortgagers. After appellee had made
a prima face case appellants offered to read in evil
dence the trHge from the original for the
west half of the quarter section, except twesty
from the northeast corner OF said tract form
erly decided TO William Davis and Emelne Ann
Davis and also to put in evidence deed from said
former to Amels Davis for twenty of
land off the south end of the west half of said quarter
section and to show by paro evidence that when said
deed made Amelia the wife of William Davis,
and that part of said land had been decided
William and Emeine Ann Davis. This evidence
should have been admitted The description in the
mortgage contains two calls: land i'll the
northeast corner, and the other land formerly
decided to William and Emeline Ann Davis" If this
land was never decided as stated one or the other
is false and if is true the false must be rejected
and the description read as if it did not contain the
Cal, GO6) The falsity of the first is
not shown by the language of the de
evidence aiund Es a B 500; Is Iad 8is 3
i'd, 574 "A i'd, 164; 50 i'd, AID The deed offered
showed that twenty had formerly been decided TO
Amelia Davis and satisfies the description, in the alb
of proof that other deed had been made
these persons. (See II Me, 1898; 81 id. 800
Whether it was 50 intended depends upon the proper
construction of the description in the light of the at
tending circumstances, and these may be shown by
extrinsic evidence. q Bay. s. c., 247 $500 The
evidence excluded tends to show that other land
formerly decided, and hence to show that the
cepted land not in tho northeast corner
claimed by appellee under his deed. Judgment re
HOO. James F. Matthews VS.. Eva Mack. Elk
hart G. G. The main question in this case is setedby
the decision in Wright vs.. Mack No lilo at this
term. Upon the authority OF that case the judgment
is reversed.
LAW soE THE cAsE-ADoPTED HE1Rs-INHERr-
ANCE
I1152 Isaac Davis VS. Elizabeth Krug. Mont
Ho,sk G. J.-No questions which were decided by
this court upon former appeal can be re-eXamned
upon second appeal Dusk Prac., 81; 53 Ind,
465; 90 id, 1861 But the law of the case does
Hot preoliue uoc'sor' VII d Seooiiu "PPe'i VI any
questions which might have been but were not con-
sdered and decided on the former appeal. The only
question decided in this the first appeal was
that husband and wife may join in the adoption of
an heir Upon the death of an adopted child the
adopting parent his heirs will inherit from such
child all property that to he child by gift, devise
descent from the adopting parent whenever such
parent would have inherited such property if the
adopted child had been the natural child Of the parent
IN Such case the Adopting parent or MS or her helfs
will inherit from the adopted child to the entire excl
sion of the natural heirs of such child In far
AZ Ind, 335, is in conflict with this decision, that
case is overruled. Judgment reversed.
APPEAI.-PARTIES-STA OF LIMITATIONS
FRAUDULENT DEED.
1l106. Harrison Hogan VS.. Jacob Robinson.
Clark, c. @.
Coleiiek C-Where an action is brought by three
plaintiffs but is dismissed to two of them and udg
ment is rendered in favor of the other the latter may
appeal to this court without joining such former
plaintiffs in the appeal The word parties, sed in
relation to appeals to this court is to be construed
meaning paniies to the judgment and not merely par
ties to the action. 90 Ind 81; 10 id, $40. The
statute of limitations may be raised by demurrer to
the complaint but in order to make it available it
must clearly appear upon the face of the complaint
that of the exceptions named in the statute
list. (36 Ind. 231; SO i'd, 143; 81 i'd, 542). This
action was to set aside fraudulent deed made by
appellant to his wife through a trustee. The evi-
dence shows without contradiction that appellant
indebted to his wife to the full value of thePro
erty conveyed and that he had ample property re.
naming with which to pay his debts. In the face of
such evidence the verdict setting the deed aside
not be sustained. &c Ind, 1915. Judgment
yersed.