The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-14
THE RECORD OF TIE COURTS
United States District Court
Hon. w. A. Woods. Judge.
To-day-No special calls.
Supreme Court.

1fANA oAA
The following decisions were rendered Oct. Is:
1920. John T. Talmaee ct al. VS.. Edward
Bierhouse ct al. Knox C. C. Affirmed. Mitch
ell, c. I'LL Appellants, as a firm, were rice
merchants in New York. With another party
they composed a firm in the rice business in
Charleston, S. c. The order for rice, by appel
lees, about which this controversy arose, was
taken by an agent of the New York house, but
who also took orders for the other house. The
existence of the Charleston house was not known
to appellees, or, if they did know of it, that it
was differently constituted from the other. How
ever. at the time, they were told that of the order
the foreign rice would come from New York and
domestic from Charleston. The rice was war
ranted by the agent to keep merchantable for a
certain period. Appellees contend that it failed
to keep, and ask a set-off. While it is true that
in order to make one demand a setoff
against another, both must mutually exist be-
tween the same parties, the evidence is sufficient
to show that both transactions were with the
same parties. e. An agent, upon whom general
authority to sell is conferred. will be presumed
to have had authority to warrant, unless the
contrary appears; and if the agent is restricted
by instructions from his principal, he will be
bound by the warranty, unless the purchaser
knew of the restriction.
1921. Silas Perry VS.. John W. Makemson.
Kosciusko c. G. Affirmed. Howk, UNLESS
the special findings are irreconcilably inconsist-
ent with the general verdict, the latter must
| stand, and judgment be rendered thereon.
1869. Western Union Telegraph Company
VS.. Samuel Mcdaniel. Benton c. c. Reversed.
Elliott, J.-Action to recover the statutory pen
atty for failure of telegraph company to deliver
a message, The message was addressed to Miss
La Fountain, Kankakee." The operator asked
for her given name, street and number. The
sender replied that he did not know them, and
that they were not necessary. as she was we'll
known. Kankakee is a place of II, 600 people.
Held: That the sender was guilty of contrib
utory negligence, and could not recover for a
failure to deliver to the proper party.
1909. Calvin G. Uppinghouse VS.. Caroline
Mundel. Floyd c. c. Affirmed. Niblack,
J.-Where a creditor, for the purpose of collect
ing a debt, transfers the claim to a party in an
adjoining. State. who by proper proceedings at
taches and garnishes money in the hands of the
defendants employer in this State, and compels
| payment, whereby the defendant loses the ben
eft of the exemption law, his situation, and his
family is left in a suffering condition., there is
not such a legal injury as will give him redress
against the creditor.
1904. John T. Carver VS.. Edmond Lewis.
Putnam, c. G. Affirmed. collars. 1.-THE
final settlement of an administrator is an adiudi-
cation of the questions involved unless the inter
ested parties have it set aside within three
years.
1925. l., B. e w. Railway Company VS..
Thomas I. Ice. Henry, G c. Dismissed.
IN -