The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-11
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States, District Court.
HON. w. "A. Woods. Judge.
To-day-No special call.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Hon. w. e. Niblack. Chief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered Jan. 9:
1903 Madeline Rochester VS.. John lowering
Tfppecanoe g. G. Affirmed. Mitchell, J.-Mrs.
Rochester, in addition to large amount of other
property, owned thirty acres of land in Lafay-
ette- Through appellant Leverlng, as her agent
she sold fifteen acres to one Ball for 81 600, in
1869 About the same time Bail offered So 500
for the remaining fifteen acres, which was
fused She and her agent went to Ball and Of
fered to sell for 81 000 This was declined, when
she requested her agent, appellee, to find pur-
chaser. This he tried to do but failed. The
tract was unfenced. unimproved and unproduc-
tive, and its main value was prospective, for
plating. 1t proximate value was 81 500 In
1869 appellee, while such confidential agent. pro-
posed to buy the land at $4 000 agreeing that he
would plat it as addition to the city, and
would pay the price mentioned. with per cent.
interest. out of the proceeds of the sales of the
lots He represented that it would be
better for her to sell than to hold
it. The court found that all the facts
within his knowledge he had fully communicated
and that there had been mis-. representation.
Mrs. lowering had full confidence in her agent
and sold on the terms. In 1869 the tract
laid out. thirty nine lots sold, and though the
purchase money was never actually paid over,
lowering credited her account with 81 000 APP
pellent paid street Improvement with judy
ment against one Austin This Judgment was
paid by appellee by increasing the interest from
business and well-appointed Office, with superior
facilities for the business By natural rise in
price and his efforts, the lots sold for more than
the land in bulk. Action by Leverlng, as agent
for services and money loaned and paid out at
appellants request Held: That the contract for
the sale of the land to the agent would be upheld
Held, also. that insurance policies placed from
his own agency on Mrs. Rochester's property of
which he was agent was only voidabie, andas the
company had notice of the relation, the policies
would have been enforceable, so the premiums
were properly chargeable against appellant.
Held, also, that appellee was not chargeable with
the highest rate of interest on moneys in his
hands uninyested. Held, also. that loan which
might have been collected with diligence, which
was lost, was chargeable to the agent
1925 Mary F. Haddock ct al. VS.. Alfred Fl.
ID. Gray. Fulton c. G.. Reversed. Elliott, j.
"A deed reading that the grantors Convey and
the sum of 81 200 the following real estate
After the decease of said Isaac Cannon
and Mary Cannon the said property to be divid-
ed between the heirs of said Isaac and the heirs
of Mary If the said Isaac shall die before his
wife she is to hold said property until her death,
and IT she die first then said Isaac is to hold until
his DEATH and at the death of both to be divided"
ETC.. vested only life estate in the grantees.
1883 William Hawkins VS.. Benjamin johnson
ct al. Martin G. O. Reversed Zollers, lapel
lees owned stave factory, the machinery of
which was propelled by steam. An iron shaft, two
inches In diameter. extended horizontally from
the factory building and connected with pump
which supplied water The shaft was supported
by two posts thirteen feet apart Between these
posts, under the shaft, was a wagon way,
used for bringing slaves to the factory. FIRE.
quently slaves were piled in this way so that at
times it was narrowed to eight or nine feet. The
shaft made ZIG revolutions per minute 1t was
smooth. having no projections on it. The
shaft was broken, and was repaired by means of
a collar two feet long and one-half inch thick,
and bolted. the bolts protruding three quarters
OF an inch. The way had been raised. SO that a
person sitting on load of slaves could not pass
under the shaft, Of which appellees had knowl-
edge. Appellant, employee, directed by the
foreman to drive under the shaft. Ignorant that
the way had been raised, and that the shaft had
been repaired, he attempted to drive under. and
seeing that he could not stepped over the shaft,
when his clothes were caught and he was injured
Under this evidence an instruction that the en-
plOyer had a right to expect the employee would
adopt the non hazardous course. if there was any,
was erroneous. An employer has no right to direct
an employee, having business on his premises, to
drive over particular way, and expect that such
employee will take precautions to avoid unknown
dangers. The instruction charging that he |
voluntarily chose the hazardous way, which was |
to step over the shaft, was erroneous, as it |
usurped the province of the jury on the question
OF contributory negligence.
1228O. Brce w Crume VS.. John w. Wilson
ct al Howard G. G. Affirmed Howk, j. |
"A petitioner for drainage may dismiss his case
within the ten days allowed by statute, after the
report of the commissioners, for any owner to
demonstrate, but when the ten days have |
elapsed, without remonstrance or other objec- |
ton. it is too late to dismiss.
1854. Augustus R. Whistler ct al vs. New
ton Fowler ct al. Wabash c. G. Dismissed
1882. William H. Shulse VS. Sue McWil-
Jams. Hamilton G. c.. Rehearing denied