The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-02-21
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court, Feb. 90. 1855.
POINTS OF DECISIONS.

No. 1906. James Fenton VS.. The State. Ham
ilton G. c. Affirmed. Elliott. Courts will
take judicial knowledge that blackberry brandy
is an intoxicating liquor
vs. John f. Myers. Knox c. G. Affirmed.
franklin, sc-(1) Objections to petition for
drainage, to be available, must be made before
the order of the court confirming the assessment
of benefits and injuries is made (2) A copy of
the assessment must be made part of the COM
plant
No. l1Ol9. The T. H. & L. Railroad Company
vs Jane A. Crawford ct al. Cass G. G. Affirmed.
Houck I'LL A witness acquainted with values
may express an opinion in relation to values; so
j where lots adjacent to strip of land appro
priated by railroad company are made neces-
sary to be filled up by the construction of its
road, one acquainted with such strip and the
lots may testify what it would be worth to fill up
the lots. az Ind, 1917 (2) Where, in appro-
pration proceedings, damages awarded by
appraisers and the owner appeals, and the rail
road takes possession, if further damages are
awarded and adjudged they must be paid to in
vest title in the company.
No. 1892. Michael Battles ct al. VS.. Bass
Foundry Works ct al-Allen S. G. Affirmed.
Franklin, C-(1.) The labilityof tort feasors is
several, and an action may be had against all or
any, each may be sued separately and prosecuted
to final Judgment But the plaintiff must elect
against whom he will take execution. A final
judgment and an execution is discharge of all
the others. e. Where the matters in dispute
we're 10 anu Inc award IOl-
lowed regularly, it must be regarded as con-
elusive as to all matters submitted and de-
termined 81 Therefore, the decision of the
arbitration against some of the appellees barred
any claim against the Others
No. 1882. Johnson ct al. VS.. Gwinn ct al.
Rush G. G. Affirmed. Black. C-Gwinn g.
Gray were engaged in the livery and feed bust
ness in the town of Rushville so, also, was
Hinchman; SO, also, were johnson Bros. The
stand occupied by the Johnsons was a valuable
" d0ip
large business. In July, 1881, Gwinn e. Gray
and Hinchman purchased johnson Bros. stock
in trade and paid for it, johnson Bros agreeing
in writing, in consideration of the purchase,
mot to start or run a livery stable in the prop
erty now known as the johnson livery stable"
during the term of their lease, which was to run
for five years from Jan. l, 1881. or as long as
Gwinn & Gray and Hinchman continued in the
business, and agreeing further to forfeit
and pay So, 500 as iquidated damages if
they should violate the agreement. This action
WAS brought by Gwinn 81 Gray to recover the
forfeit, alleging the breaking of the agreement
and making Hinchman defendant he having
refused to join as plaintiff Held-(L) The
restraint of trade imposed was not unreasonable.
(2.) The Supreme Court will not inquire as to
the adequacy of the consideration, there being
valuable one g. 1t was not essential to
the contract that the lease should have been
transferred, or that the buyers should have car
red on business in the leased premises, or that
they should have bought the goodwill of the
business. a. It was not necessary to allege
special damages. Is It was not necessary to
the liability of the Johnsons whether Hinch-
man was still in the business when said John
sons, or either of them, resumed business. AS
long as plaintiffs remained in the business they
had right to sue for damages for breach of
the contract and to recover the whole amount
stipulated
No 1850 William R. McKeen vs. William
r. Haskell, ct al. Vanderburg, S. c. Reversed.
Bicknell C. City While the assessor is making
Sc hov III
omitted property that may be discovered After
he has made his return to the auditor and while
the duplicates are still in the hands of
the auditor, any omitted property dis
covered must be placed by the auditor on his
list, with the name of the owner, and the auditor
may then have such omitted property assessed
by the assessor, or he may assess it himself
But, after he has received his duplicate, nobody
else can add to it; if it shall be made to appear
to him that any property has been omitted, he
alone must assess it and place it upon his dupli-
cate (2.) AS to the second proposition see 60
Ind 573; 4 Ind. Law Mag. 263
No. 1l074 Robert FL. Hunter VS.. Laura
Eichel ct al. Vanderberg c. G. Affirmed. Best,
C-The question in this case is as to whether
the plat itself of an addition to city, or an ex-
planatory note thereon, shall govern in the de-
scription and location of certain lots. It is held
that the plat governs, the explanatory note is
too contradictory to be reasonable.
No. 1867. Gottleb Wachstetter vs. The
State Marion c. c. Petition for rehearing
overruled.
No ll799 John A. Kersey ct al. VS.. John N.
Turner. Grant c. c. Petition for rehearing
overruled.
No. 1923. Asa n Sinner vs. Henry L. Mann
Marion S. c. Petition for rehearing overruled
No. 1882 John M. Pitcher vs. David M.
Dove. Hancock G. G. Petition for rehearing
overruled.
No. 1886. Joseph K. Sharpe VS.. Mary NJ.
Graydon Marion G. c. Remittiter rejected
and petition for rehearing overruled
BANQUET of the Gentlemen,s Clrh