The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-23
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS
Supreme Court-Feb. ~.
Hon. Geo. V. Howk. Chief Justice

1'NAt CAiANA 1SNAN
NoTE-wANT o F OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.
lO0ll. Nathan Moore ct al. VS.. PhTander H. Boyd.
Hancock G. c.
Franklin, {. C,.-Suit on two promissory notes. The
Iourth paragraph OF answer was as follows: For joint
and several answer to so much of the plaintiff claim
SET Lorth IN the second paragraph as exceeds the sum
Oh Pooo aefendants say that the note in suit, as to
si'eh excess, was given without any consideration
therefor The note was for $S05. Want of con-
sldeTauon may be pleaded to a part as well as the
whole of the cause of action. Il Ind. 1856: 8 Ind.
800 This answer was q good defense to that part
OF the note to which it was pleaded, and it was error
to sustain the demurrer to it. Judgment reversed.
BANKRUPTCY-LIEN OF PRIOR JUDGMENT.
S. C. P'' "iiH
Howk, G. IA discharge in bankruptcy operates as
an actual extinguishment Of all pre-existing debts,
CLAIMS, liabilities and demands against the bankrupt.
which were or might have been proved against his
estate in bankruptcy, whether they had been reduced
70 judgments or otherwlse' The Judgment against
Jerome B. Root, under which appellant claims, was
extinguished by his discharge in bankruptcy. 1t fol
lows that the lien and other incidents of such judg-
ment, as to all afteracquired property of the bank
rupt, were destroyed by such extinguishment. (24
n j., 427i II Penn. St, 243; &c Ne, 267; L n. Y.
oO(.l The moral obligation to pay the debt contin-
ues, but this is not sufficient to keep the Judgment
alive, or to continue in force the lien and p~riorities in
cldent by law to a valid and subsisting judgment. The
discharge is not d mere shield to the bankrupt, to be
interposed or not at his own personal election, but
may be interposed by his creditors. In this case APP
pelant claimed by virtue of a sale under a judgment
against Root before his bankruptcy, and appellee
claimed through a sale under a Judgment rendered
against him after his discharge. Judgment affirmed.
wIFE's PRoPERTY-TAX L~IsTs-FRAUD.
l00O5. Carver Stanield VS.. Mary E. Stiltz. New
Elliott, J.-Where a wife owned a mare before mar
riaSe its foal belonged to her, and could not be taken
for the debt of her husband. The fact that the horse
was assessed as the husbands did not conclude the
wife from showing the truth. Nor were the assess
ment lists evidence against the wife unless made with
her knowledge, and not then, unless it appeared that
she intended thereby to allow him to assert a claim to
II as owner. There was some evidence tending to
show !" i on the part of the husband, and that the
wife 3 -..c:pated in that design, and appellants asked
an instruction that fraud need not be proved by direct
evidence, but might be inferred from circumstances
This instruction should have been given. Judgment
reversed.
RAILRoADs-wHEN EXCUSED FROM FENCING
TRACK.
10,96s. E. st. H. Ry. Co. VS.. Jno. W. Willis ct
al. Sullivan c. C.
Hammond, J.-Action for a mule killed on appel
lant's road, where the same was not fenced. To have
fenced the road at the place mentioned would have re-
quired a eattle-guard near the end of a bridge, and an
other near a switch not far distant. The
evidence shows, without conflict, that a guard near
the switch would greatly have endangered the lives of
the appellant employees in operating its trains. 1t is
well settled that a railroad is not required to fence its
track where such fence %interferes with its own rights
in operating its road or transacting its business, nor
go G1si Tnd dnS EST: 4S g id lne 1{ E80 80 l are So iRSsF IS ID, S ss5;
81 id, 593.) There is greater reason for holding that
it should not be required to fence, where the lives and
limbs of its employees would be thereby endangered.
The road was therefore excused from fencing at the
place complained of. judgment reversed.
The following cases were also decided, abstracts of
which will appear hereafter:
1926. Mary Lancaster vs.. Caleb Du Hodway.
Wayne G. G. Affirmed. Best, c..
1904. Henry MeCrary VS.. Charlotte Mcfarland.
Vanderburg c. c. Affirmed. Bicknell. c.
10063. Colestin During VS.. Nicholas Maschino.
Jennings c.. G. Reversed. Black, G.
10555. Geo. w. Keen VS.. Samuel Breckenridge,
Dearborn c. c. Affirmed. Colerick, d.
10739. Travellers ms, Co. VS.. Lucy Nolan. Madi-
son G. @. Relocating granted.