The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-13
Supreme Court.
Hon. Byron X. Elliott, ohief-justice.

Hon. Byron X. Elliott, Chief-justice
The following opinions were rendered on Sat
urday:
DEcEDENTs-JoINDER OF PARTIEs--DIsMIssAL.
1892 Solomon Claypool ct al. VS.. Abraham
Gish. Fountain c. G. Reversed Mitchell, j.
Suit on a claim which was as follows Estate
of Joseph Ristine and George McWilliams. de-
ceased, Solomon Claypool, William A Ketcham
and John McMannomy, to Abraham Gish. Dr., :"
etc. The second paragraph of the complaint al
legged that McMapnomy hello certain claims
against the l., b. 81 w. Railway Company which
were placed in the hands of Rstine 81 McWill
Jams for collection. They sent the claims to
Claypool 81 Ketcham. Ristine g. McWilliams
died and the claims were assigned to Gish. 1t
is charged that Claypool & Ketcham had in their
hands balance due plaintiff. Claypool 81
Ketcham have no connection or privity what
ever with any obligation that may have existed
between Ristjne 81 McWlliams and McMan-
nomy, If they are liable their liability does not
grow out of any contract in which they are
jointly bound with Ristine & McWilliams. The
right of party to appeal under the code of civil
procedure cannot be cut off or abridged by join
ing him as defendant in an action against es-
tate, such action being founded on a claim for
the payment of which the appellant is not joint
ly bound with the decedent by contract The
complaint is bad in not averring that the money
remains in the hands of the appellants and that
there was any demand upon them for an ac-
counting or a refusal on their part to pay.
JURoR--coMPETENoY.
1890. Augustus Stools VS.. The State. De.
Kalb G. c. Reversed. Niblack, J.-Where a
person called to servo as juror who admits
that his preiudices against the liquor business
recognized as lawful are so fixed that he might
not and probably would not give to the testi-
mony of q party engaged in it as much weight
and credit as he would if the party were en-
ployeG in some other business, is prima face
incompetent to serve as juror in case involving
that business.
CoMMIssIoN-PLEADING.
1906 August Baals VS.. Robert W. Stewart.
Allen G. c. Affirmed. Howk, jim a COM
plant to recover damages for the unlawful con-
version of piano, it is not necessary to allege
that plaintiff was entitled to possession. (2.)
Overriding demurrer for misjoinder of cause
is not cause for reversal 81 A paragraph for
to recover possession a. J The vendee's note
and agreement with plaintiff show that plaintiff
did not sell, but only agreed to sell, the piano in
controversy, and that such instrument was to
remain the property of plaintiff until paid for,
and that until that time the vendee should have
no property in the piano. In sale by the vendee
of the piano to third parties, they acquire no
title
SPECIAL FINDING-NEw TRIAL.
1928 Samuel Buchanan VS.. Lambden P.
Millgan. Huntington c. C. Reversed. Elliott,
J-When defendant is sought to be made liza
its terms and conditions must he fully stated in
the special finding so that the nature of the I'M
dertaking may be ascertained and the extent of
the liability of the obligor be made known as
matter of law. e. Where it appears from the
whole record that justice can only be done by d.
recting new trial, that course will be adopted.
Where the special finding is apparently full and
perfect, and it appears that nothing remains but
to pronounce the law and apply it TO the facts,
then the mandate will be that Judgment be
rendered on the special finding
1920 David Mcconnell ct al vs.. George r.
Huntington. Marion c. G. Rehearing denied.