The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-18

10194. Hiram Hanshew vs.. Henry Hanshew. Tip
Howk, c. Jon petition for rehearing A motion
in arrest calls in question the suicency of the
plant after verdict But where the only issue for
trial is formed by answer of general denial. and
the finding verdict is for the defendant the plant
ifs motion in arrest, if made at the proper
time, will present question for the decision.
either of the Circuit or this Court Petition over
ruled.
RAILRoADs-KILLING sTocK-NEGLIeENcE
11100. L., n. A. & G. Ry. Co. VS., Charles Shelton.
Washington c. G.
Hammond i'm an action against a railroad com
pany for killing stock where its road is fenced it
is defense that the plaintiffs negligence contrib
uted to the injury. (6S Ind 1919 Where it is the
off a certain part of the track he cannot re
cover for an injury to his own animal, caused
by his e, failure to do o., his - duty; But the
tered and killed that part of the
track where his contract required him to keep off
trespassing animals. 1t is charged that he turned his
mare loose in violation of his duty but this is mere
conclusion. The facts out of which the duty arose
should have been stated. showing how and in what
respect his act cOnfcted with the terms of his
ployment The facts stated in the third paragraph of
answer were provabe under the general denial hence
it harmless to sustain the demurrer there
to. Judgment affirmed
10347. Henry Robinson VS.. Jno A. Glass Clark
G. G.
Elliott 1.-THE rule that one must exercise diligence
in the signing of written instruments does apply
where trick artfce is resorted to in order to pre-
vent the person reading the instrument Ord-
nariy the sgner has right to rely upon the state
ments of the other party to the character of the
instrument, but if a known trust and confidence
is reposed in the person making the state
ments aud there is relationship iqstifying such
them. q Blkf 1877; 10 Ind, 40; II i'd, 567; 2
Pars, z cd, 773.) And where one knowingly pro
cures agent or person trusted and confded in
knsnan friend to falsely represent the contents
of writing, and thus prevent the person signing it
from reading the instrument, this is such artifce
renders the whole transaction fraudulent 1t is only
where the evidence clearly shows that right result
was reached that this court affirm the Judgment
on the evidence, Notwithstanding the jury we're mis-
directed as to the law. Judgment reversed.
CoNvEYANCES TO Observation-Disclosures
ANCE
941s. Dennis Vaughan VS.. Catherine Goldman ct
al Tippecanoe G. G.
collars J-Action by appellant to set aside con-
veyance of land to his daughter and to quiet his title
thereto. The complaint alleged in substance
money, and he and his wife conveyed it to their
daughter. then aged five years, upon the advice of
attorney, to prevent it from being sold for debit that
the deed deliveredsto the daughter who had
no knowledge of it for twelve years appellant procu1
ing it be recorded and retaining possession both of
the deed aud the property, which was used as the
home Of the family: that he paid all taxes and made
improvements the property. Upon these facts
can this court question of lazy that the deed
by words without actions or by actions without words
go Ind, 3l6 1t may be delivered without being
put INTO the hands OF the grantee. az Ind AIS; 80
i'd, 1885, % i'd, So 80 i'd 402) But in order to
constitute delivery there must be intention to
part with the control the deed and to place I'M
der the control Of the grantee 49, Ind q; 3 Wash
r. p, 4 ed, 1856, 291 296; l Johns. Ch., 40; 81
Mich, 264; AZ n. j. 279; Mart. Law of Convey sec
ton 204 ct seq And there must be an
acceptance by the grantee. But if the grant to an
infant be gift and beneficial and the grantor has the
deed recorded, the infants acceptance will be pre-
suned. Nlartindale, supra, sec. 2O5, 209, gid 3
Ohio 377.) From the averments of the complaint it
cannot be declared matter of law that there was
delivery of the deed 1t cannot be said that the
%ntisry facts of delivery set up in fine complaint
overthrow the positive ayerment that the deed was
never delivered. Judgment reversed, Elliott j., dis
sents.
PARTITION SALE - FRAUD - INNOCENT PUR-
CHASER
978S. Phoebe Moore vs. John Trimble. Shelby
G. O.
Howk c. IA purchaser at partition sale, who
has knowledge Of any fraud in the proceedings and
who is purchaser in good faith for value, and with
ont any notice that any fraud was perpetrated, the
title 50 acquired by him will not be affected by the
fraud 90 Ind, SOP; 70 id, Az; 70 i'd, 1851
Having thus acquired good title he may convey it to
another, though there be consideration for
the conveyance. Judgment affirmed