The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-09
THE RECORD OF TIE COURTS
United States District Court
Hon. w. A. Woods. Judge.
calls.
Supreme Courf.

The following decisions were rendered Oct s:
10000. William A. Cullen ct al. vs. the Town
of Carthage. Rush. G. G. Reversed collars,
1.-The marshal of Carthage arrested one Holt,
VINO, In violation OF the town ordinances, was
drunk and disorderly. Holt brought suit
against the marshal for false Imprisonment, and
the town employed appellants as attorneys to
defend him. Suit for compensation. Held that
the contract was not ultra wires and the town
was liable for their services
1892. Elizabeth Cupp ct al vs. Eliza M.
Campbell Hamilton G. G. Affirmed Mitchell
Z. i'll wife who joins her husband in
mortgage upon his real estate, occupies as to her
inchoate interest therein, relation so far anal
ogous to that OF surety as that she has a right
to an order directing that the thirds of the
land mortgaged be first sold to satisfy the debt
put her contract IS not one of suretyship within
the meaning of the statute. ~ When it is
sought TO enforce a contract against the property
OF married woman the plaintiff must aver and
prove that the contract was one which
she had power to make f3) Where
an encumbrance is made on the wife's
separate estate to pay the husbands debt, or to
remove an incumbrance which by the terms of
the statute she had no power to make and which
exposes her land to peril whatever it cannot
be said that the consideration for the encum-
orance Eso made Injured to the benefit of the
WIFE, a. A married woman may be estopped
IN pals, but some element of fraud misrepre-
sentatlon or coneealment must enter into her
conduct so that the estoppel shall be predicated
upon tort and not upon contract; but those who
deal with her are bound to inquire concerning
the consideration. whether it is for her benefit,
and unless misled by her conduct they will be
held to have acquired such knowledge. She
cannot be estopped by the mere form of a con-
tract which she had no power to make.
l2Oo2. Mary r. Rosa ct al. VS.. Henry Prather.
Warren G. G. Affirmed. Niblack, J.-(L)
Complaint to review a judgment. 1t was alleged
that the Judgment plaintiff had assured the
plaintiff that his complaint was only for the pos
session OF land, whereas another paragraph filed
thereafter set up claim for title in fee, and
lying on the assurance, judgment was taken by
default Held: That the alleged assurance was
not reasonable excuse for appearing and de-
tending the original action. (2.) The statute
provides that any person under legal disability
may hle complaint for review but coverture is
not legal disability within the meaning of the
statute. 3D. The statutory method for review
Is special proceeding to which the variousstat-
utes of limitations have no application. Sections
6l5 and GIG. Revised Statutes, contain lmita-
lions applicable to such proceedings Reserva-
ton as to non-reSidentS not being contained
therein cannot be inferred.
No. 12O30 John w. Grubbs ct al vs. George
3 Morris ct al. Henry c. G. Affirmed Elliott,
J.-Where a debtor makes an assignment under
the provisions of the statute, he can not prefer
creditors in his deed.
No. 1851 l., B. q W. Railway Company vs.
Allen Maddy. Henry c. c.. Affirmed. Howk,
J.-1) Questions not fairly presented by the
assignment of errors will not be considered. (2)
In suit against two defendants, evidence that
one was away, had no knowledge of the suit
and that another person had no authority to APP
pear for him, when wholly foreign to the issue,
is properly excluded. If the authority is ques-
toned, the party himself may be required to pro-
duce it.
ll04l Jane Leggett VS.. Josiah Firestone
Marshall G. G. Rehearing denied.
l2l48 oohn w. Duncan vs. Absalom Wal
lace. Dearborn G. c. Rehearing granted
l2Ol0 Joseph Graves VS.. State ex rel Graves
Henry Z. q. Motion to reinstate overruled.