The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-08
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.
hon. G. v. Howk, Chief justice.


hon. g. v. Howk, Chief-ju
The following opinions were rendered Dec. q:
1885 Mary j. Weiss ct al. vs. Louis A.
Guerineau. Vigo S. G. Affirmed. Mitchell, j.
Methods for obtaining new trial or to reverse
a judgment for material new matter or for error
of law are pointed cut by statute, and beyond
the methods prescribed courts possess inherent
power to an almost unlimited extent to redress
wrongs by modifying or setting aside judg-
ments obtained by fraud or mistake. A judg-
ment. however wrongfully obtained. cannot be
ignored and the rights Of the parties again be
inquired into. AS long as the judgment stands.
not being void, it concludes the parties
upon the subjects therein determined.
when person pays debt FOR
, which another was personally found
protection of his property, is compelled to pay
debt to which he is q stranger and one for which
another is legally or equitable bound, becomes
entitled on the principle of subrogation to avail
himself of all the remedies to which the person
to whom payment was made was entitled, or he
may maintain an equitable suit as for money
paid to the use of the other. Where money
has been paid in pursuance of a judgment such
judgment cannot be interposed to prevent re-
covery In case the person receiving the money
fails to discharge the obligation against himself
which obligation, a result of the same judg-
ment it became his duty to pay out of the money
30 received.
| 1l91o. James Byard VS.. VIM. r. Harkrider
Newton c. c. Affirmed. Howk. G. IAN OBJ
| lection that a question to witness was incom-
| petent immaterial and irrelevant is too general
to present any question. a. An award to be
valid must be signed by all three of the arbitra-
| tors In absence of a written agreement that the
award should be final, if made by two arbitra-
| tors, the award is void.
| 1924. State VS.. Breckenridge Reynolds
Delaware G. c. Affirmed. collars, J.-Con-
| sidering the statute whole, the intention of
the Legislature clearly was that the township
| assessor and his deputies should have authority
| to administer all necessary oaths in connection
with tax lists, and that such authority is given
| by the statute. (2.) All residents of a township
on the first day Of April, or at any time between
that day and the first day of june
Or at the time when the assessor
| is required to complete his assessment. except
| such as have become residents subsequent to the
| first day of April and have been assessed, are
| taxable in that township for their moneys and
| credits owned on the first day of April. An in
| dctment for perjury in falsely swearing to a
| tax list showing that the defendant was resi-
dent OF Monroe township on the 18th day of
| April, 1884 does not show that he was resident
| of that township the LIST day of April nor
that he was taxable in that township, and it is
| bad.
| 12549. James NJ Richey vs. John Merritt
| Clinton G. c. Reversed. Niblack J.-Where q
judgment is lien on several parcels of land
| which are afterwards sold by the Judgment de-
PENDANT to various persons and at different times
court Of equity will compel a sale of such
| landS TO sat1sIy such judgment TO De maze
| in the inverse order of their alienationj but if
a subsequent owner OF a parcel fails to take
measures to protect himself and having notice
Of the sale and levy, without objection, allows
the sale TO be contaminated, it Ia too late to OBJ
| ject that the proper order of priority was not
observed in making the levy, as we'll as the sale
| 1851. Adelia New vs.. Emmett e. Walker
Hamilton c. c. Reversed. Elliott, C.-J.-The
| statute imposing certain duties on the vendors
| of patent rights Is constitutional The provis-
ion requiring the insertion Of the clause given
for patent right" in note is police regula-
| ton, but Independently of that consideration it
prescribes what shall be written in particular
class of property, and is valid. T. Where the
| holder OF the note purchased with full knowl-
| edge of the character of the transaction. that
| the note was executed for a patent right trans
ferred in violation of the statute, thsre can be no
recovery. 81 The statute applies to the sale
| of the right to use and to manufacture for sale
and use the patented Article. a. Where the
| person who buys a note not containing the words
| required by the statute and knows that it was
executed for patent right, he must at least af-
| frmatvely show that bis indorser was pur-
chaser in good faith ~ The principle that
| where one of two innocent persons must suffer
from the act of third person, he who put it in
| the power Of the third to do the act must bear
| the loss applies where the purchaser of such
note, for full value, bought without notice of it
being for patent-right from one who had no
such knowledge and before maturity