The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-03-19
THE COURT RECORD.



No. 10716. William T. Noble vs. Board OF
Commissioners of Wayne county. Affirmed.
Mitchell, County commissioners are not
bound to pay county auditor for services not
authorized by the statute.
No. 1855 Edward D. Pugh ct al vs. William
A. Pugh ct al Fayette G. G. Dismissed.
Franklin The statute requiring appeal bond.
etc, in matters connected with decendent's
estate to be fled within tsn days after the de-
cision complained of is made not having been
complied WITH appeal is dismissed.
No. 11744 Samuel B. Matthias VS.. William B.
Thomas. Wayne G. G. Affirmed. Elliott, J..
ii. AS to evidence showing sufficient diligence
in rendering money under a contract see opin-
ion. r. Where one party notifies the other
that he will not peform his part of contract,
the other need not offer a second time to per-
FORM a. If the defense desire to show that
the plaintiff is not the real party in interest 1t
must be specially pleaded.
No. 1888 Frederick FL. Riehl ct TX. vs. The
Evansville Foundry Association. Reversed.
Black, C.-(1) Where an employee wrongfully
converts money to his own use q constructive
trust arises in favor of the employer, and equity
gives him the right to enforce that trust as long
and identified unless it is in the hands of bona
fide purchaser for value and without notice. (21
The evidence fails to support the finding.
12199 Matthew w. Scott ct oil. We. the Board
of Commissioners Vermillon county. Vermillion
G. q. Affirmed. Colerick, C.-The appellants
and others presented to the Board Of Commits
sioners a petition for a free gravel road and
fled with the petition a bond signed by the
appellants, as provided for by the acts of 1877,
page 50, conditioned for the payment of
the expenses Of the preliminary survey
in case the construction of the road
was not finally ordered. The pre-
liminary survey was made and reported and the
board ordered that the improvement be made.
After the final report was made, but before the
board had acted on 1t, all the appellants (the
bondsmen) and also most, if not all, of the petit
TONERS, requested the board in writing to re-
woke and set aside its order for the improve
ment and the proceedings Hereunder, which
was done In an action on the bond to recover
the expenses of the preliminary survey. Held:
That the appellants are estopped from question
ing the validity of the revocation, and that they
are liable on the bond.
1892 VIM. Proctor vs. Erastus B. Cole.
Elkhart G. C. Affirmed Bicknell c. C.-u)
ruling striking out part of a pleading is not q
cause for a new trial. (2.) In suit against the
assignee of note the declarations of his assign
or, made in his absence and after the assign
ment, are not proper evidence, unless part of
the res gest& Or unless a conspiracy to defraud
has been shown.
No. 1890. John Cox OF al. VS.. Albert M.
Coffin ct al. Vermillion G. G. Dismissed.
No Ills William S. Peckham vs. Frank
Mcmillan Tippecanoe S. G. Petition for a
rehearing overruled.
No. l099S William r. Conrad vs.. Sarah
Kinzie. Cass G. c. Rehearing granted.
No. 1864. l.. B. g. W. Railroad Company vs..
James Nipp. Henry c. G. Record Withdrawn
and case relied as No. 12209.