The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-13
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-May 12. 1885.

No. 1886. Christopher C. Hedderich VS.. the
State Marion c. c. Affirmed. Elliott. IA
statute prohibiting the sale of liquor between
the hours of II o'clock P. NJ and O'Clock a. M"
is not beyond the power of the Legislature, and
it is constitutional and valid
No. 1913. Weiburn Wartner VS.. the State
Jasper G. C. Reversed. Howk, Under the
bill of rights, an accused is entitled to trial by
jury, and he cannot waive this right unless au-
thorized by statute. So, where an accused pleads
guilty to capital offense, and the judge pro-
nounces judgment without the intervention of a
jury the accused could not waive his right and
a new trial will be granted.
No 1928. Lucinda Bryson VS.. William Nc
Creary Switzerland c. @. Affirmed collars,
C. 1.-THE act of 1861 provides that a judgment
debtor may redeem land sold under foreclosure
of mortgage at any time within year after
the sale, and during the year the debtor may
occupy the premises and enjoy the rents and
profits, and if he fails to redeem he is liable to
the purchaser for the rents otc. That act as
construed, intended, not that the owner should
speculate with the rents during the year, but use
them to redeem his property, and if he failed to
redeem he would be accountable for the rents
etc, to the purchaser. The act of 1879, in
order to prevent bad faith in the debtor
gives the rents to the purchaser, makes the
tenant the purchasers and liable to him, and if
the debtor redeems them the amount of rents
collected is to be applied on his debt. A mort
gage was foreclosed prior to 1879, and in suit
by the wife OF the mortgageor to recover the rents
during the year Of redemption, the mortgageor
having failed to pay and the rents having been
paid to the purchaser Held that the act Of 1879
would govern the control of the rents, as it did
not impair the obligation of the contract en-
tered into under the act of 1861.
No. 1907 Frelinghuysen Bryan VS.. John
Uland ct al. Greene g. G. Affirmed. Mitch
ell J.-(I) A widow 1nder the statute takes
one-t third in fee of her husbands estate, but il
he has children living by former marriage such
one-third is an estate in expectancy to the chill
l.. - -
conveyance by her of such estate is void and
confers no title ~ In such case quit-clam
deed by the adult children and by the guardian
of the minors conveys no title. %. The children
are not hound to pay for improvements made by
her grantee. a.. Where the title is not in issue
to assert after-acquired interests.
No. 1852. Milton Ponder ct al. vs. Frank L.
Ritzinger ct al. Reversed per curiam Prior to
1875 Pouder executed two mortgages. Suisse
quent to 1875, the senior mortgage becoming due,
and Pouder unable to pay it, it was cancelled
and new one executed by himself and wife.
The junior mortgagee in order to give his senior
his old priority Cancelled his mortgage and took
a new one In a suit to foreclose the senior mort.
gage, Pouders wife asked that one-third be set
off to her the act of 1875 providing for the inter
ests of married women in land sold at judicial
sale), which was granted. Held: Error, as,
under the circumstances, the giving of the new
mortaage did not extinguish the lien of the old
was continuation thereof, and therefore the
mortgage and the proceedings thereon are not
governed by the act Of 1875.
No 1854 Isaac G. Elston vs. VIM. Caster
ct al. Hamilton c. c. Petition for rehearing
overruled.
No. 1887. s. J. Fletcher, ct al vs. Robert G.
McGill. Marion S. G. Petition for rehearing
No. 109S1. S. ID. Ludlow VS.. Marion TIP. g. r.
Co. Shelby c. G. Petition for rehearing.
REHEARISGs GRANTED.
No. 9532. Jonathan Edwards VS.. James John
son. Grant G. c.
No. 1873 Sarah Mayhem VS.. James Burns
Allen s. c.
No. 10252. John w. Minor vs. Emeline
Vaughan ct al. Perry c. G. Also dismissed.