The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-03-14
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court, March Is, 1885.
POINTS OF DECISIONS.


No. 11704. Max Bumgardner VS. Oliver Has
ty. Huntington c. c. Reversed Elliott, j.
Hasty in his complaint charged that Bumgardner
wrongfully and maliciously destroyed covering
erected over an ice box on the premises of Ell. B.
answered by way of justification, alleging that he
was the marshal of the city of Huntington; that
ii. was the owner of lot in that city; that the
lot was situated in part of the city in which the
Common Council had, by ordinance, prohibited
the erection of wooden buildings; that H., in
violation of the provision of the ordinance, did
erect frame building on the lot; that he was
requested to remove the building and refused to
do So whereupon B. notified the mayor, in ac-
eordance with the provisions of the ordi-
nance and that officer issued to B.
warrant commanding him to remove
the building, and acting under this warrant he
did remove it. using all proper care, doing no
unnecessary damage, and alleging further that
he acted without malice and that the removal
was necessary to avoid danger. Held: That this
plea is good, and that the city had power to en-
act the ordinance and to enforce it,
No. ll41O. Ben Blanchard vs.. Caroline Z.
Jones. Vigo G. G. Affirmed. Black, C.-Ql If
instructions given to the jury, taken as a whole,
express the law applicable to the case without
material contradiction, tie judgment will not be
reversed because some one instruction, II con-
sidered by itself, might be capable of an applca-
ton which would ignore material question in
volved in the issues. (2) An appellant cannot
complain of an inconsistency in the instructions
given the jury caused by giving instructions
asked by himself. (3l Areal estate agent who
is authorized to receive certain price for real
estate placed in his hands for sale, must, if he
receive more advantageous offer, communicate
the fact to his principal He is only entitled to
his commission, and not to the overplus. That
belongs to his principal
No. 1859. Samuel B. Lewis vs. James FL.
Christie. Jefferson, c. c. Rehearing denied.
No. l0761. Margaret J. McCaslin VS.. ex rel.
Edward H. Wolf, auditor, etc. Marion, s. &.
Rehearng denied.
No. 1l613 VIM. Metzler ct al vs. Elizabeth
Metzler. Huntington, G. c. Rehearing denied.
No. 1929. Elizabeth Krug ct al. VS.. Isaac
Davis. Montgomery, G. C.. Petition for re1ear-
ing by appellant.
No. 1904 The Indiana Insurance Company
VS.. Elwood A Hartwell Marion S. c. Re
versed. Mitchell. J.-(1) In suit to recover
loss accruing under policy of fire insurance,
the failure to file either original or copy of the
policy with the complaint makes said complaint
fatally defective. z. An insurance broker who
is merely employed by party to place line of
insurance for him. is not the agent of the in
sured SO far as to bind him to a cancellation Of
the policy by accepting notice from the insurer
of its cancellation, according to condition in
the policy that the insurer could cancel by Civ
ing notice to the insured and by returning the
unearned premium. Nor is an instruction from
the insurer to such broker to charge the former
with the amount of such unearned premium a
sufficient refunding of the unearned premium to
the insured, even if the broker were indebted to
the insurer.
No lO98l Stephen D. Ludlow ct al VS.. The
Marion Township Gravel-road Company Shelby
G. c. Affirmed. Mitchell, J.--Where, in plead
ing former adjudication, the date Of the judg
ment is left blank, the remedy is by a motion to
make more specific, and not by demurrer In
this case the learned Judge properly condemns
the practice of leaving blank dates in pleadings,
and says it sought to be corrected by the ygor-
Gus interposition of the trial courts.