The Indianapolis journal., 1885-01-30
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court, Jan. as, 1885.
POINTS OF DECISIONS.

POINTS OF DECISIONS.
No. 10959 Penn Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany VS.. Bertha Miller. Allen S. G. Black, C.-Af-
flrmed. Q) In actions on insurance policies
the application need not be filed with complaint
t84 Ind. 310l. " What constitutes near rela
| tive, as the term is used, is question of law.
(3l Insurance contracts are literally construed,
so If the answer to any lnterrogatory IS true,
though the question would suggest fuller an
swer yet if the insurer be content with such
answer he cannot claim warranty extending be-
yond it. (67 N. Y, 1S5; 60 n. Y, 2o6; 65 Ind
6l al The Statute makes communications with
physician privileged. and this covers testimony
as to health of insured This privilege may be
waived But the calling of one physician by
the beneficiary of policy as to the health of the
insured did not waive her right to object to
Introduction of other physicians testimony.
tSec. 497, r. S.. 1881; II Ind, 203, IA; Wend,
437; al Mich, 667t
No. 1855. Pennsylvania Companyvs Hiram
Weddel, Bartholomew G. c., Elliott, J.-Af-
| or for false imprisonment, may be maintained
against a corporation. t73 Ind. 430, % Conn
$50, Is New. 1871 t2.) A corporation is re-
sponsible for the act of agent performed while
engaged in the performance Of acts within the
general scope of his agency, although such act
was wilful and unauthorized. (92 Ind. 81, 81
Ind. 49, 81 A corporation, entrusting gen
eral duty to an agent, is responsible to an in
lured person for damages flowing from the
agents wrongful act, although by such act the
agent may have failed in his duty to his princi-
n. Y. 2a Story Agency ISL a.
| The principal who selects an agent to detect
and arrest offenders is responsible for his acts
committed within the general scope of his en-
ployment, although the agents act was unlawful
and he had arrested an innocent man. 10. J
Where an act is competent evidence, SO also
are the declarations of the persons engaged IL it's
performance, and constituting part of the
thing done. &c Ind. 317.) (6) Declarations of
agent made when he was actually engaged in
the performance within the line of his duty are
admissible against the principal 70 Ind. 133.)
a. An affidavit filed and warrantissued furnish
ground for malicious prosecution. g. Where
the facts are not disputed the court must decide
as matter of law whether they do or do not con-
stitute probable cause. Where they are dis
puted the court must alphabetically state the
material facts to the jury. which then is evi-
dence fairly tending to prove and positively
state the law thereon
No. 1852 Curnie, Dunn G. Co. VS.. Elias
Rauh ct al; Wayne G. G. Bicknell, c. c.
Affirmed. Action for replevin by appellees
against appellants The attempted sale of per-
sonal property transfers no title. e Ind, 448,)
In such cases the owner of property may main
tain replevin therefor against the vendee, even
against an innocent purchaser without notice.
But where there is no absolute sale and delivery
Of personal property by the owner to the vendee
and the sale is merely voidable on account of
fraud in the vendee, such vendee may transfer a
good title by sale made to a bona fde pur-
chaser for value. A purchase of goods with
design of not paying for them is fraud that
vitiates the SALE
No. 1865 James NJ Dehoritv vs. John Wright
ct al Madison G. G. Franklin C.-Afsrmed.
H. Where title is conveyed by deed contain
ing statutory general warranty the cove
nants run with the land and a remote grantee
may maintain an action against remote grantor
for breach of the covenants.
JAN. 90, 1885.
fo UaPa cd
yesterday.
No. 1866. Calvin P. Barnett VS.. State, Glib
son @. G. collars, G. Affirmed.
No. 1918. c., c., c. 81 I. Railroad Company
VS.. Harriet Wynant. Madison c. c. Howk, j.
Reversed.
No. 11574 Williamson M. Alexander VS..
Board of Commissioners of Marion county. Ma
rion c. c. Franklin, C.--Afirmed.
No. 1890. Daniel NJ Bynum VS.. Board of
Commissioners of Greene county. Greene c. G.
Elliott Affirmed.
No. ll66l-Mary J. Ikerd ct al. vs. HenryJ
Beavers. Fountain c. C.-Rehearing granted.
No. 1896 Samuel NJ. Williams VS.. Francis
A. Goodwin.-Motion to reinstate oyerruled