The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-06-29
THE COURT RECORD.

POINTS OF DECISIONS.

No. 1876. Monroe Avery ct al VS.. Oliver r.
Dougherty Morgan G. G. Affirmed. Elliott,
J.-Suit on promissory note. Answer that the
sole consideration of the note was the execution
Of lease by the plaintiff to the defendants
whereby it was covenanted that defendants
shouldShave the peaceable, quiet and undsturbed
possession of the premises; that the defendants
took possession, that prior to the suit plaintiff
wrongfully, and, without the knowledge or con-
sent Of defendants, entered upon the
logs while the ground was soft and
spongy, and injured the crops. that
they left tree tops where they fell, which de-
PENDANTS had to remove at great expense. The
agent Of A. r. Dougherty," and purports to be
between Marshall, as agent of Dougherty, and
defendants. If contract itself shows that the
words were not used as merely descriptive Of the
person, they will not be so regarded, but will be
assigned their real meaning. 1t sufficiently ap.
pears that Marshall was agent 1t is contended
that the facts show breach of the covenant.
and therefore the consideration falls Ii q lease
does not express covenant, IT Will DE given
such by force of law; but mere trespass or
wrongful entry, without an assertion OF title,
does not break covenant.
No. 1888 David II. Lipes ct al. VS.. George
w. Hand ct al. AllenC. G. Affirmed Elliott
J.-(L) Under the act of 1888 the trial of drain
age cases was by the court IN land owner:
in drainage proceedings should not be charged
with general benefits which accrue to him as a
member of the community. He is chargeable
with special benefits. Benefits are special when
they increase the value of land, relieve it
from burden or make s;o it especially especially
its value q Suth. DAM, 454-62 109 Mass,
243; SO Mass, 3l2; IL Gray, 4l3) When the
construction of large ditch enables property
owners to cary their lateral bitches into it and
thus secure good drainage without encroaching
upon the rights of others there is special bene-
fit Where a landowner obtains an outlet for
lateral bitches constructed for the drainage OF
his land by means Of a large ditch, or by reason
of the widening, deepening and Strengthening OF
a natural stream he receives special benefit,
for he is provided with means of drainage with
out injury to others.
No. 1l026 John Fl. Hunter VS. Thomas Fitz.
maurice. Ripley G. G. Affirmed Mitchell,
c. J.-When the name of one of two sureties on
note is forged and the other surety signed in
the belief that the forged name was genuine, he
is nevertheless bound il the payee accepted the
instrument without notice of the forgery. Ga
Ind 1851 ca The fact that the payee di
rected the maker to take the note and procure
the signature of the other surety one surety
refusing to go on the note without the other,
does not constitute the maker the payee's agent.
No. 1885. Mary A. Beard VS.. Alexander
Lotion. Washington c. G. Affirmed collars.
J.-Suit on contract which provided if Mary
A. Beard would dismiss suit against David
Beck, administrator, that the, undersigned,
children Of Simeon Lotion hereby agree that in
the distribution of the estate she should receive
an equal share with each other child 1t ap
peared that all of the property was disposed OF
by Simeon Lotion to his wife by will, except that
held by appellee. There ~was no estate there
fore for Mary A. Beach to share in equally with
each other child and she is not entitled to re-
cover.
No. 1921. Henry G.. Bliss VS.. John DOUGH.
Lake c. G. Reinstated.
REHEARINGS DENIED.
No. 111S1. Henry G. Dodge vs. John S. Kin
zie Elkhart G. c.
No. 1160l Mary e. Allen ct al. vs. John
Davis. Grant c. G.
No. 1880. G. FL. R. Anderson, ct al. VS. Jacob
r. Etter. Montgomery G. c..
No 1889. City of Indianapolis vs. Sarah S.
Kingsbury ct al. Shelby c. G.