The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-11-07
Supreme Court.
supreme court.
Hon. Joseph A. S. Mitchell, ief-justice.
The following decisions vrare rapdaraJ Nov g.


Hon. Joseph A s. MITCHELL Chief Justice
The following decisions were rendered Nov 6:
1910. Western Union Telegraph Company VS..
Charles n. Harding. Fountain c. G. Reversed.
Mitchell O. j. Howk, j. dissenting-(1) Under the
statute providing for penalty in telegraph
company falls 10 transmit message penalty is in
CURED unless there is failure to receive aud transmit
during the usual Office hours both at the point where
the message is received and that to which it is to be
transmitted GU There is duty from the telegraph
company to sender of message to inform him.
less inquired of of the Office hours of other offices when
the statutory penalty is sought; but if message
showed upon its face the importance of speedy trans
mission and other means of making the communica.
ton more available to the sender if he not in
formed that the chosen Intellectual, and his
conduct might be materially controlled such want of
information the company might be bound to ascertain
and disclose its inability to serve him or be liable in
damages
1870. G. & A. Ry. Co. vs. Henry Derles ct al.
Adams c. @. Reversed. Howk, J.-Appellees en-
tered into bond of the following purport In con-
road through Adams county they agreed to be bound
unto appellant in sufficient to pay for the right
OF way across said county, the bond to include the
right OF way already contracted for and that hereaf
ter to be contracted for appropriated but switches
and depot grounds excepted. Suit by the company
for the sum necessarily paid for the right of
way alleging its full performance of the contract
The bond was not void for want of mutually. The
affirmative acts of appellant, done and performed
upon the faith OF the contract, made it mutual and
Dlndlng whether the contract was ultra wires need
not be decided for after full performance by the
pany OF the stipuations of the bond, and after APP
pelees have received the benefits they barganed for
they cannot escape their obligation upon the ground
that the company had exceeded its corporate power
Ills. Dennis Vaughan VS.. Catharine Goldman ct
al. Iippecanoe G: G. Affirmed. collars Appel
liant is the father of appellee in October 1867 with
out any money consideration, he and his WIFE now
dead appellee's mother, signed and acknowledged a
deed which, upon its face is deed of conveyance in
fee simple to appellee of the real estate in dispute;
appellant shortly afterward caused the deed to be
corded at that time appellee about six years DID,
and never knew of the deed until she eighteen;
the deed was kept in bureau drawer of her mother S
for several years and afterwards in possession of ap
pellant Held Upon these facts, the following pre-
sumptions First that the deed delivered;
second, that it accepted by the grantee. These
presumptions make prima facie case for appellee,
and they are not overthrown by the evidence.
1884. Henry Arnold VS.. Archangel Engleman.
Huntington G. @. Reversed. Elliott J.-Notes exc
cuted by a married woman for wearing apparel for
herself are valid and enforcible. (Secs 5115 5117
r. S., 1881
12402. James B. Wilson VS.. o. f. Roberts Ohio
&C j. b. Miller, administrator, substituted ap-
pellant
1890. John M. Burke ct al. vs. June M. Abbott
ct al. Marion S. O. Rehearing denied.