The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-10
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS


Hon Geo. V. Howk, Chief JUSTICE
l0S27 William Miller VS.. John Wilson ct al.
Shelby c. c..
Bicknell c. C-Action by appellant to recover
possession of certain land. The questions in the
case, the special findings of the court and the
conclusions of law thereon, are the same as those
IN No. 10. 4S8, decided at this term and upon the
authority Of that case the judgment is affirmed.
INSURANCE PoLIoY-AssIGNIENT
1922 Samuel B. Bushnell VS.. Susan T. Bush
nell. Jasper G. G.
collars J.-Appellant, as administrator of
Thomas Bushnells estate sued to recover the
amount OF policy of life insurance which it was
alleged the appellee had wrOngfully converted TO
her own use. The theory of the plaintiff WIS
that Bushnell, before his DEATH had assigned Jhe
policy to appellee, who was his wife, in fraud of
his creditors, or that after his death she had an
assignment to her written on the policy above the
name of her husband. The evidence clearly
tends to sustain the finding of the court The
bill of exceptions does not contain all the evil
dence so that there is really nothing before the
court. An insurance policy is chose III action
and may be transferred by the beneficiary in
dorsing his name thereon and delivering the pol
icy to the assignee. (5l Ind, p; So i'd, 1906
Judgment affirmed.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. BY RECEIVER.
5000. FIT. Wayne NIuncie G Cincinnati Rail
road Company VS. Lowell Mellett. Henry G. G.
Elliott Ut appears from the evidence that
when the appellee purchased the land in contro-
versy appellant was in actual possession under
claim and color of title, and under the law as it
stood prior to 1881, the deed to him was void as
to the appellant and he could not maintain an
action for its recovery. 67 Ind, 52S; 60 i'd, 47S.
The land was in the possession OF q receiver APP
pointed in foreclosure proceeding. instituted by
the holders of a mortgage executed before APP
pellee bought the land When the action was
brought there was no unlawful possession, for it
was in the custody Of the law. One court can
not exercise authority over property in custody
of'the officers of another court of competent iur-
isdiction ('ipher VS.. Fordyce IS Ind; IA How,
81; High on Rec 1897 Judgment reversed,
ADsuNIsTRAToRS-FINAL RRPoRTs-PRACrIcE.
1866. John J. Dobles VS.. Harmon w. Suits,
administrator. Huntington G.. G.
Best, C.-See. 1891 r. S provides that excep-
tons may be filed to the final report of an
administrator, but no answer TO such exceptions
any other pleading is authorized. The ques-.
tons of fact raised by the exceptions are denied
or avoided without any additional pleading. As
no additional pleading is authorized, no question
can be presented by demurrer to such pleading.
$50 Ind 1885, so i'd, 81 No question can be
presented upon such exceptions unless the evil
dence is in the record. Judgment affirmed.
WIDOWS LIFE EsTATE-DEBTs OF TEsTAToR
1048S, William Miller VS., Israel Buell.. Shelby
G. C.
Bicknell, G. C-Appeant recovered iudg-
ment against Nancy Pulse, who owned life
estate in certain land, and bought the land at
the sale under his Judgment. Afterwards by
order of court, the land sold to pay the debts
and legacies of the decedent Held; The widow
took her life estate subject to said liabilities, and
appellant by his purchase took no greater
interest. The liabilities of the testators
estate are paiamount to the liabilities of his de
wise. l55 Ind, 430; % i'd, 567 The fact that
appellant was not a party to the proceeding to
sell the land to make assets makes no difference
lie bought subieet TO the right of the admins
traitor to cause the land to be sold to make assets
if necessary. Judgment affirmed