The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-03-13
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court, March 1e, 1885.
POINTS OF DECISIONS.

No. 1910. Board Of Commissioners, Henry
county VS.. William II. Murphy. Henry G. c.
! Reversed Howk J.-In an action under sec
58l3, r. S., 1851, for the refunding of taxes, it
must be shown, in order to make case within
the statute, not only that a special assessment
was made by an unauthorized person, and in an
irregular manner but also that the property
upon which the taxes were laid was not justly
subject to the assessment 1t is not enough to
show that the special assessment was irregular
and unauthorized, but it must also be shown
that the taxes were unjustly levied man cam
not evade the payment of taxes justly chargeable
against him, by showing that the wrong person
made the assessment The complaint in this
case does not come within the above rule, and is
bad
No. 1881. VIM FL. lowering, Trustee VS. Sophia
r. Smokey ct al. Tippecanoe S. C. Affirmed.
Coerlck, ca wife who executes mortgage
upon her separate real estate to secure debt of
her husbands is not estopped to assert that she
holds said real estate by gift from her husband
notwithstanding the deed to her from the inter
venlng third person purports on its face to be
Tor valuable consideration and she thus brings
herself within the statute which prohibits
rled woman from encumbering cher separate
property acquired by Descent devise, or gift" as
a security for the debt of her husband. The
mortgage in such case is void.
No. 1l4S0 Berkshire Life Insurance Com
pany vs, John D. Hutchings ct al Marion
;. q. Affirmed. Bicknell, G. eff A. for suf-
ficient consideration, agrees with to pay BIS
debt to G, A does not thereby become the debtor
OF O. 1t requires some act of adoption by G to
entitle him to the benefit of AS contract and
if before such adoption and B rescind their
contract, there is nothing left for except his
original claim against B. This principle applied
to an assumption and agreement to pay mort
gage by the grantee of real estate. The
mortgage must notify the grantee of his
| acceptance of the agreement.
No. 1892 Carbon Block Coal Company VS..
John F. Murphy ct al. Clay c. G. Reversed.
ami lin IN l;,,rr
for forfeiture of the real estate to the grantor,
If the grantee or his heirs assigns should use
the premises as place for the sale of intoXicat-
ing liquors, cannot be waived by the parol assent
of the agent of the grantor
No. 11444. John c. Ringensberger ct al VS.
Ira Z. Hartman ct al. Marshall G. c. Affirmed.
Elliott I'D. An affidavit for change of
venue, filed after the time limited by rule of
the trial court is insufficient If it fails to show
diligence to discover the fact which is alleged as
reason for the change. ~. A ruling of the
trial court respecting supplemental complaint
cannot be presented by a motion for new trial.
(3). An application for a change of venue on the
ground OF convenience to witnesses is addressed
to the discretion of the trial court.
No. 1864. William Test ys. Leroy NJ Larsh
Wayne c. G. Affirmed. Best, Can applica-
ton fer a new trial upon the ground of newly
discovered evidence must show that due diligence
was used to discover such evidence before the
trial In this case upon the facts stated requi-
site diligence is not shown.
No. 1924. Indiana Insurance Company VS..
Edward A. Hartwell Marion S. c. Reversed.
Mitchell, J.
No. ll410. Ben Blanchard vs. Caroline f.
Jones' Vigo c. c. Affirmed Black, c.
No 11475. Stevens Lafayette g. Concord
G. r. Co. Tippecauoe G. G. Petition for hear
ing overruled
No 1928. Opp VS.. Ten Eyck. Tippecanoe
S. c. Petition of rehearing overruled.
No 1929 Lake ct al. VS.. Lake jr. Morgan
G. c. Petition for rehearing overruled.
No 1862. Hartmann VS.. Mink Wayne C.
G.. Petition for rehearing overruled.
No ll306. Joab ct al. VS.. Sheets. Vigo G. c.
Petition for rehearing overruled
No 1910. Johnson vs. Mullinix. Steuben
c. G. Rehearing granted