The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-11-24

apolIS or other points and be repeated. In De-
cember. 1884, appellee went to the l. & Y. Office
with message for Bedford The agent told
him the price. but that he would not send 1t
from that office; that it would have to be sent
from the other Office. The sender declined to do
this and the agent then told him he would take
the message, but the sender declined and went to
the other Office The suit brought for the
statutory penalty. The evidence fails to show
that the telegraph company violated any OF APP
peliee's rights OF neglected any duty 1t owed to
him.
PLEADING-ANswER.
1884 Otis Allyn ct al VS.. Adelia Allyn.
Posey G. C. Affirmed. Howk, J.-H a para
graph of answer is bad, and mas been held so on
demurrer, then, no matter how we'll its allega-
tions may have been proved, the issue joined
thereon was an immaterial one, and it was the
duty OF the trial conrt, as it is the duty of the
Supreme Court to disregard such issue and rem
der judgment without reference to It, T. An
answer to a suit notes alleged that the plain
tiff brought bastardy proceedings, charging the
defendant with being the father of her child;
that at that time che was a minor; that the notes
in suit were given In compromise and settlement
of those proceedings, but that the attempted
settlement was void. because the justice did not
find that suitable provision had been made for
the maintenance of such child, and there was,
therefore, no consideration. Held: Bad
VOLUNTARY ooNvEYANcE-FRAUD.
1870 Rachel Barrows ct al, VS.. Mary Bar
J.-Where wife Joined in the conveyance of land
by her husband and upon being divorced from
him she brings suit to have the conveyance set
aside as fraudulent and subject the land to a
judgment for alimOny, such conveyance will not
be set aside when it is shown that she particir
pated in the fraud. She was in no sense cred-
tor of the granter and there was no evidence of
intent to defraud her.
MALICIOUS Observation-Disclosures.
1918. Emmett E. Walker ct al VS.. Oliver
Pittman. Clinton G. G. Reversed. Nib.ack,
jim an action for malicious prosecution evil
dence of the bad character of the defendant for
peace and Quietude at the time the personal col
lision took place. for which the plaintiff had been
arrested, is too remote as evidence in chief q. J
Evidence of the amount of attorneys fees in
Cured In defending the prosecution is admis-
sible. Whether such fees had been paid raises a
merely collateral question with which the de-
PENDANT has no concern
wILL-DETERMINAPLE FEE.
12514 Frank Greer VS.. John S. Wilson ct al
Fayette c. c. Affirmed. Niblack, IA tes-
tator by his will provided that the control &C.
cupancy and profits of all the real estate of
which he died seized, should go to his wife dur
ing her natural life To his child, her heirs and
assigns forever the fee simple was devised
subject to the life estate of the mother In case
the daughter should die without heirs surviving,
or in of such heir. and it do not survive to
full age distribution is to be made to collateral
kindred The mother survived daughter, who
left son. appellant. and husband Subse-
Quently the mother died. Suit for partition of
the land by Judgment creditors of the daughters
husband Held: That the daughter became
seized of determinable fee in such real estate,
and that OH her death her husband succeeded to
one individual third part of the same real es-
tate, as the owner in fee. subject only to the
same contin zency. and that the estate to which
he had so succeeded was subject to sale on judg-
ments against him.
MECHANICS LIEN-NoTIoE.
1921 Theresa @. Vinton Us. Builders and
Manufacturers Association ct al. Marion S. c.
Affirmed. Howk, Under Sec 5 of the me-
chanics' lien law Acts 1885, p l40) mechanics
or other persons are not required to notify the
owner or his agent in writing of the furnishing
of the materials, but verbal notification given
at or before the time mentioned TO the owner or
his agent was sufficient compliance with the
statute.
BoND-PAROL EVIDENCE.
1851 Singer Manufacturing Company vs.
VIM. II. Forsythe ct al Decatur G. G. At
frmed. Mitchell. J.-Suit bond. The
bond conditioned that VIM. II. Forsythe should
pay, or cause to be paid, any and every indebt-
edness or liability then existing, or which might
thereafter in any manner exist or be incurred
on his part, to the Singer Manufacturing Com
pany, whether such liability should exist in the
shape of book accounts, notes, renewals or ex.
tensions of notes, or accounts, acceptances, in
dorsements or otherwise Held, that it was
competent for the defendants to aver and
prove the original transaction and agreement
between Forsythe and the company which fur
nished the sole consideration upon which the
collateral engagement of appellant was entered
into. u When appellant terminated its con-
tract of agency with Forsythe, and, instead of
receiving back its unsod property, made an alb
solute sale thereof to him, taking his notes. it
engaged in a transaction which was in no man
ner contemplated by the contract, the per-
formanca of which the bond was given to secure.
The bondsmen never engaged to answer for such
transaction.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES UNsoUNDNEss.
12OS2-Physio Medical College ct al. VS.. VIM.
Wilkinson ct al. Hamilton G. &. Affirmed.
Mitchell, j. In an action to cancel deed and
quiet title an allegation in the complaint that
"the plaintiffs the heirs and only heirs etc,
is sufficient statement that the plaintiffs had
such an interest as entitled them to maintain the
action. a. Where there is mental unsoundness.
accompanied with and probably resulting from
inhrmitles and decreptitude of old age, there is
no presumption, either of law or fact, that pass
ing years give release from such Imprisonment
of reason. r. Where it is not shown that
grantor, IN deed, of unsound mind, received
any benefit from the transaction her heirs may
rescind without rendering back the amount of
benefits accrued to others who We're benefelaries
of the grantor.
MARRIED woMAN-EsToPPEL
1874 Mary Ward ct al VS.. Berkshire Life
Insurance Company. Marion S. c.. Affirmed.
Elliott, J.-Suit to foreclose mortgage exc
cuted by appellants, husband and wife. A
representation by wife that money sought as a
loan is for her use and benefit is not a repre-
sentaton that the wife has capacity to contract,
for it is not in any a denial of the exist
ence of the disability of coverture. but is merely
an affirmation of the fact that the contract into
which she proposes to enter is contract for her
own benefit. T. A married woman, under the
rule that she may be bound by an estoppel in
pals, like any other person is bound by a repre-
seEtaton as to the character of the contract into
which she seeks to enter and from which she
asserts she will receive benefit This estoppeI
extends to the conveyance of lands by deed or
mortgage 81 Ward made application for
loan representing that it was for the benefit of
his wife, he offered to make oath to that effect,
and he and his wife made affidavit that the
mortgage was not executed as security for
debt of the husband or any other person. The
agent had other means of knowing the pur-