The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-11

JANUARY, III.
SALE OF LIQUOR on sUNDAY-1NDIcT3lENT
l1O46 Samuel Ashley vs. The State. Hunt
| ington C. G.
Elliott, Ut is sufficient to aver in an indict-
ment that the name of the person to whom liquor
was unlawfullY sold, or from whom property was
stolen, is unknown. Is Ind. 100: Ii id, 537.)
| Under the present law it is msdemeanor for
any person, whether licensed not, to sell
! liquor at retail on Sunday. (R. s., sec. 209S
| 53l2.) Appellate courts will not interfere with
the decision of the trial court on jury upon the
credibility of witnesses. Judgment affirmed.
REAL ESTATE neutrality-suspicious..
o. 1907 VIM. A. Stewart ct al VS.. James A
Murray. Howard c. C.
Hammond, J.-Where the owner of land
placed it for sale in the hands of brokers' agree
ing that they might have all they could get for
| it above a certain price, and afterwards the
price named, the brokers were not entitled to
their commission In such case no express
reservation of the right to sell need be made by
| the owner. Such right exists in the absence of
| its express surrender or of express agreement
that the broker alone should have the right to
sell the land. Il Am r., 40; i'd, 349 SO n. Y,
37S; 40 i'd, 56l This case differs from 40 Ind,
! 275 where the broker actually found a pur-
chaser though the owner had previously sold the
land himself Here the brokers never found any
purchaser, though they alleged they could have
done so had not the owner made the sale him
self. Judgment affirmed
WIDOW S RIGHTS IN MORrGAGED LANDS-DUTY
OF AN ADMINISTRATOR. -.-
Margaret Sparrow VS.. jerome T. Kelso Knox
c. Q.
elliott 1.-The complaint of appellant alleged
that the land of her deceased husband was par
titioned between her and the heirs, and the adj
minstrator sold the part not set off TO her; that
the whole was covered by mortgage in which
she and her husband had joined, and the admin
istrator failed TO take a bond from the purchaser
for the payment of the mortgage, and that all the
land was afterwards sold to satisfy the mortgage
1t is the duty of an administrator to apply all
money not needed to pay preferred claims to the
payment of liens on real estate so as to secure
the widows one-third of the real estate (25
Ind, pa; 40 id; IA; 81 i'd, $50; 20 id, 5l2) In
the statute in force in 1878 z r. s., 1876, 528)
the word may is to be construed as SHALL"
and it is made the imperative duty of the admin
istrator TO take bond for the payment of liens
and for IA breach of this duty he is liable to any
one injured. But it does not appear that appel
liant was injured. The land may not have been
worth more than the lien; if so, appellant had no
interest to protect Having joined in the mort
gage, she owned but an equity of redemption.
(G4 Ind, 24S; 81 i'd. 1884, The administrator
sold only the part allotted to the heirs, and in
which appellant had no interest Judgment af
firmed.
COUNTY CLERKs-LIABILITY UNDER SECTION
$3.50.
1856. Charles L. Jewett ct al. VS.. ex rel.
HalTod. Scott &. c.
Niblacl 1.-THE word funds as used in sec.
$3.50 II. S. has much broader meaning Than the
word moneys" 1t includes money and such
articles of property as either constitute money
are in some sense the equivalent of money BY
virtue of this section whatever funds or frag-
mentary part of fund a clerk may be required
to take into his custody by order of court he
and his sureties are responsible for on his of
hcial bond county order turned over to the