The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-09
THE COURT RECORD.
'npreme Court--April 8, 1885.
POINTS OF DECISIONS.

supreme COurt--Apfll o. 1900
POINTS OF DECISIONS
No. n946. State ex rel. Edward Watson vs.
Board of Commissioners of Knox County. AT
firmed- Elliott, There is no statute author
izing county commissioners to place tax as
sessed in aid of railroad, upon the tax dupli-
cate, and mandate will not lie against them to
compel its performance The county auditor is
charged with this duty.
No. 10241 Phoenix Insurance Company vs.
Union Mutual Lite Insurance Company. Ma
rion S. G.. Affirmed. Howk, J.-Where mort
gagees paid the premium on policy of insurance
issued to the luoltgageor on the mortgaged
property, and the mortgage clause in such pol
Icy provided that the mortgages should nouify
said insurer "of any change of ownership or in
crease of hazard, which should come to their
knowledge the commencement of foreclosure
proceedings by the mortgages cannot be regard
ed as "a change of ownership" or be presumed
to increase the hazard, and the policy will not
be invalidated thereby.
No. 1857 SAMUEL Coon VS. Alfred Elliott
Knox G. G. Affirmed. Colerick, C.-1.) A
plaintiff seeking to recover land upon defect in
the deed of the holder and the same defect ex-
listed in the deed by which he had held the bur
den OF proof is on him to show his title ~
sheriff need not return the appraisement of
rents and profits, unless the property levied on
remains unsoId 81 A purchaser at a sheriff's
sale is not affected by the sheriffS failure to
make correct return.
No. 12036. Henry Robertson VS.. Mary A.
Huffman ct al. Washington c. G.. Affirmed.
Black, C.--Where it is agreed that bill of excep
tons, filed in former appeal is to be used as evil
dence that other facts are to be- used, and that
a certain statement of matter of fact is to be
added to the testimony of witness in the bill,
and there is trial of issues of fact upon whether
certain testimony and documentary evidence IN
the former trial should be taken in this trial,
questions arising the overriding of a motion
for judgment in the PLAINTIFFS favor can be pre-
sented in this court only under motion for
new trial.
dianapols VS.. John Armstrong. Marion
s. G. Affirmed Nback, Under Sec
ton 1872, R. S., 1881, the garnishee is
accountable for the amount of money, property
or credits in his hands, due owing from
him to the defendant; so where bank converts
coaterals of tho defendant after garnishment
notice. without showing that it properly dis
charged it's duties custodian of the collaterals,
it is liable to the plaintiff.
No. l1614. Samuel s. Quick, ct al vs. Cath
crime Bremen. Hamilton G. G. Affirmed. Bick
nell C-Where the evidence is not in the record
this court will presume that all the facts proved
on the trial were found by the court in its special
| finding. 81 A joint assignment of errors pre-
sents no question upon any ruling against one
| only of the parties. g. Where onethird in
value of lands is to be set off to widow, the
value is to be taken at what it was at the time
| of the decree of partition. a. Where widow
| had obtained judgement for third interest
| in lands acquired by her husband during his CO.
venture, against the grantees of his mortgages
any claim for improvements by such grantees
should be by cross petition before the commits
sioners are appointed. mere exception to the
| confirmation of the report of the commissioners
presents no question.
No. 1860. James W. Anderson ct al VS..
James G. Endcutt ct al. Decatur c. C. Re-
versed. Bicknell, C.-Commissioners of drain
age have no authority under the statute to build
drain within the limits of a city. R. s. 1881,
sections 31O6, 1851, 316l; acts 1883, p. 173
No. 1906. Lucy j. Mason VS.. Hughes Mason
Brown c. G. Affirmed. Best CD The evidence
showed that the plaintiff had not kept an account
of money received by the defendant except for
four months, from the use of her property, and
in evidence she sought to show the amount upon
a basis of those months. The jury was instructed
that it was necessary for her to trace the specific
amounts in the plaintiffs hands, also that evil
dence as to what was embraced in such settle
ment should be excluded Held That if this
was erroneous, there undisputed
claim against her exceeding the aggregate Of the
items offered by her, the error was harmless
u A naked averment of a mistake in drawing
up an agreement, without seeking reformation
of the contract, cannot avoid the defense of the
agreement
No 1876. Hugh D. Huntington VS.. Isaac
Elston. Montgomery G. G. Affirmed. Mitch
ell, J.-Where one brings ejectment suit
der deed, but is defeated, and subsequently APP
peals to the Supreme Court and secures re-
versal, his title cannot be defeated under Sec
ton 500, r. S. 1881, by one who bought the land
before the appeal, in good faith, and without act
ual notlce OF the appeal. w In Such case the
deed was constructive notice of the appellants
rights, and a lis pendens notice was not re-
quired.
No. 1865. James M. Dehority VS.. John Wright
ct al. Madison @. c. Petition for rehearing
M No. 1852. Audley N. Harmon ct al. VS. chas.
billiard Grant c. c. Petition for rehearing
overruled.
No. 1O709. Western Union Telegraph Com
pany VS.. j. S. Ferris Shelby G. G. Rehearing
granted.
No. 11772 Manhattan Cloak and Suit Com
pany VS.. Henry c. Dodge ct al. Elkhart c. G.
Motion to dismiss overruled.
No. 11478. B., o. & G. Railroad Company VS..
A. North ct al Marshall G. c. Rehearing
granted.