The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-06-12
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court-June II, 1885.

POINTS OF DECISIONS.
No 1854. Veronica Vogel vs. John Leichner
Aliens. G. Reversed. Mitchell, O. Under the
statute a married woman cannot become
surety. l2.) Whether contract executed by
married woman is one of suretyship not will
be determined by a consideration Of whether or
not 1T was made by her or in her own behalf, and
upon consideration moving to her or for the
benefit of her separate estate. To the extent
that the consideration was received by her, or
Injured to her benefit, or to the benefit of her
estate, she will be held to be principal. If it
was received by her husband for his debt she is
a surety. b.. Whether she is principal or
surety will not be determined from the form Of
the contract, but from the inquiry-was il for her
benefit?
No. 1886 Christopher Gillette vs. Daniel
Hill. Elkhart G. G. Reversed. Niblack. j.
Several plaintiffs obtained judgment against
Daniel Hill, in the City Court of Elkhart A
new trial was granted but the Judge, concluding
that the order for new trial was void, issued
executions on the judgment to the sheriff. Con-
celving that the motion for new trial had been
properly granted, Hill sued in the Circuit Court
to restrain the enforcement of the execution.
The execution was quashed, but the Judge of the
City Court issued another execution, and, to
prevent the sale of his property, Hill paid the
amount The sheriff paid over said amount to
the execution plaintiffs. The court decreed in
the Injunction suit that the execution was void
and the money should be returned to HiN On
appeal, the judgment was affirmed (93 Ind. J
Hill then sued to recover from the sheriff the
amount collected on the execution, and got judg
ment. On appeal. that Judgment was affirmed
t96 Ind, COLI. The sheriff then sued to be sub
rogated to the rights of the judgment plaintiffs,
and have the Judgment in the City Court
set off against Hills. Held: Under the facts he
was entitled to subrogation.
No. ll3l0. Thomas L. Johnson vs. Stephen
w. Mullenix ct al. Steuben @. G. Affirmed.
Elliott 1.-The act of 1881. p. 4l6, Sections IT
and 49, makes special provisions for appeals
from board of commissioners in ditch proceed
lngs, and no summons is required to notify a
party of an appeal. He is bound to take notice
of the provision giving thirty days in which to
appeal.
No 11463. VIM. D. Baker VS.. Noah Glenn.
Allen s. G. Rehearing denied.
No. 1887 Jacob Stanley vs. VIM L. Mont
gomery. Madison G. G. Rehearing denied.
No 1892. VIM. Proctor Erastus B. Cole.
Elkhart. G. G. Rehearing granted.
No. 1905. c., c., c. & l. Railroad Company
VS.. l.. s. Newell. Marion, S. G. Rehearng
granted.
No. 11616. Indianapolis & c. G. R. Company
VS.. Belt Railway Company. Marion, S. G. Re-
hearing granted.
CASES DISMISSED.
No. 1l075. Henry st. Clair ct al. VS.. Samuel
Mcclure. Ripley c. c.
No. 1856 Kate S. Morgan VS.. Nancy Cullens
ct al. Jennings c. c.
No. 1100l. Melissa Cassidy ct al. vs. Jacob F.
Miller ct al. Vigo c. c.
No. 1l149. Walker K. Armistead VS.. John
Love, jr Knox G.. c.
No. 9735. Archibald Hoesback vs. Commits
sioners of Warrick County. Spencer c. c.
No 1882. Charles n. Cheek VS.. VIM. H.
Roberts ct al. Vigo S. c.
No. 1914. Elk parte Alexander Whiting. vigo
C. c.
No. 12l14 John Holderman vs. Daniel Manner
Noble G. C.
No. l1465. t., N. A. & c. Railway Company
VS.. John w. Alder. Clay G. G..