The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-08
Supreme Court.
The following decisions were rendered Oct

The following decisions were rendered Oct Z:
No. 1859 L., E. & st. L. R'y Co. VS. Thos.
E. Payne ct al Dubois G. C. Affirmed. Howk
il In an action to recover personal property
under Section 1867 Revised Statutes, allegations
that the property has been wrongfully
detained, ''and that it is detained
at ETC., do not serve as estatute provides. for
recovery when there is wrongful taking and I'M
lawful detention. Wrongfully and unlawfully
are not synonymous. e. In such case an exc
cution defendant cannot maintain such an action
for property held under execution, except where
the property is by statute exempt from execu-
ton. An averment that the execution and judg-
ment are void is a pleader's conclusion.
1924 VIM. d. Platter vs.. Board of Commits
sioners of Elkhart County. Lagrange c. C. AT
irmed Elliott, J.-Q) Where county board
orders the sale of poorfarm to relocate, it need
not formally order the discontinuance of the
asylum originally established e. The board
may sell property when, in its sound judgment,
it is no longer required for a county purpose,
and may change the locations of county institu-
tions, if not forbidden, when it is required
by the the welfare of the people. 81 Where
there are adversary proceedings of judicial
character. and notice is required, the judicial
functions must be exercised at regular session
of the board; but where the business is min
isterial or administrative it may lawfully be
transacted at special session. The order to
sell property is ministerial and may be given at
special session. az. The act of selling being
LiiHiotcIiol, IL NdS ouCu q poWcT as Tue UOdru
might delegate to the auditor of the county, to
act as its agent. (5). The act of selling not
being a judicial one, there is not right of
appeal from the order of the board (6) The
statute, upon the sales of county property, must
be applied in its full force and vigor, and where
a notice ordered by a board and given to the
auditor fails to price it fails to state the
terms of the sale within the meaning of the
statute, and is defective. (7l Acts of public
corporation performed in violation of a statute
cannot be ratiied nor will estoppel validate such
acts. IT, In equity cases a venire de novo will
not be granted for an imperfect finding of the
jury unless it appears that the court adopted the
finding as its own.
11754 John Lott vs. Charles Scott ct al
Sullivan G. G. Reversed. Nback, jim an
action to recover damages to a wall by the drip
ping of water from the caves of an adjacent
house. it is error to refuse to permit witness
who was a contractor Of many years expert
ence and who built the wall, to give his opinion
as an expert upon a hypothetical case as to the
cause Of the dampness.
11435. John l.. Douglass ct AL vs. Andrew
W. Thomas. Kosclusko c. c. Mitchell, c. j.
In an action to recover on a note given for pur-
chase money where a counter claim setting up
failure of title is pleaded such counter claim
will not be supported by proof of a right of way
given to a railroad over the land when deed
was given prior to 1853 conveying to railroad
company right of way so long as the company
wanted to use it, would only convey to the com
pany an easement in the land and not fee.
11477 John Dellnger ct al. vs. Harriet
Barnett. Pulaski c. G. Dismissed.