The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-17
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court.
hon. w. A. Woods, Judge.
To-day-No special call.
Supreme Court.


Hon. W. E. Niblack, Chief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered Dec. 16:
1910 Pennsylvania Company VS. Nicholas
Marion Owen G. C. Reversed. Mitchell, j.
"A complaint averring that the plaintiff took
passage on one of defendants trains from one
regular station to another: that about a half
mile from the station which was reached about
III o'clock A. NJ, the train Stacked up so that
when it. reached the station it was
moving at very slow rate, so
that plaintiff could have aiighted if there
had been a suitable platform; that the platform
had been suffered to get out of repair; that it
had settled down or become depressed in the
middle SO as to form an inclined plane from the
car to the center OF the platform; that while the
train was running at a slow rate of speed, and
without any fault or negligence on his part, the
plaintiff stepped on the platform without any
knowledge of its defective condition, when
owing to the inclination, his feet few from un-
der him, and being thrown under the train was
injured, etc.-in the absence of direct aver
ment of negligence in the defendant does not
raise presumption of negligence
1918. Clarinda V. Forgerson ct al. vs.. Peter
B. Smith. Tippecanoe G. G. Affirmed Elliott,
JILL Where there are incidental questions in
a case which are not considered or decided, this
court is not bound to consider the former
decision as conclusively adjudicated upon them.
But where the questions are necessarily involved
and where the conclusion declared could not
have been reached without either expressly or
implicitly deciding such questions. the judgment
on appeal rules the case throughout all its subse-
quent stages. The fact that new party defendant
came into the case over the objection of plaintiff,
whose claim of rights is Identical with that of
her defendants, does not change the rule. e.
Where it is proposed to introduce evidence OF
matters which occurred prior to the death of the
decedent by witnesses interested in the DISPOSE
ton of his property, the admissibility of such
evidence is within the discretion of the trial
court vested by the statute. Each case must
be determined upon its peculiar characteristics.
1t is not an abuse of discretion to exclude par
ties from testifying to oral declarations where
they hope to obtain property upon the spoken
words of decedent.
1O515. John Brown ct al. VS.. Frank W.
Searle ct al. Cass c. G. Affirmed. Howk, j.
Under the code, a motion for judgment non
DISTANT veredicto or for Judgment on the plead
ings. could only be made by the party against
whom the verdict has been found. So. when a
jury with their general verdict and interroga
tons find less amount than that claimed by
the plaintiff such motion will rot lie. How
ever in this case, if it were held otherwise,
there no defects in the answers which could
not have been fully supplied by the evide nee,
and covered by verdict. and the evidence is
not in the record, the presumption is that the
answers were supplied thereby.
l2O8O: Samuel A. Campbell ct al. VS.. Frank
lin w. Hunt Lake G. G. Rehearing denied.
1928. Jacob B. Ellis ct al. VS.. Elkhart Car
works ct al Elkhart g. c. Motion to correct
judgment and recall execution overruled.