The Indianapolis journal., 1886-11-04
THE RECORD OF TIE COURTS.
Supreme Court.
Hon. @. " Howk. Chief-iustice.
The following opinions were rendered Nov. 81


Hon. @. v. Howk. Chief Justice.
The following opinions were rendered Nov. 8;
TOWNSHIP NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
10000 Board. ETC., of Montgomery County
VS.. William Bromley. Montgomery G. C. Re-
versed. Niback, Under Sec. 6009, r. s., for
services in the ordinary civil and school busi-
ness OF the township, the trustee shall be paid
at the rate of 81 per day out of the township
fund and for services as overseer of the poor ne
shall be paid at the same rate out of the county
treasury, and separate accounts must be kept OF
the amount OF each class of service rendered
from time TO time. AS applicable to both classes
of cases, the section means allowance of only
81 can be made for an actual days service with
out reference to the manner in which the day
may have been divided between the two classes
of service and consequently township trustee
is not entitled to receive out of any fund more
than So for official services performed during any
one day.
AMENDED OoMpLAINT-ILLEGAL CONTRACT.
1900 John R. Hunter Vs. Jacob Pfeiffer ct
al. Warren T. G. Affirmed. Mitchell, j.
Where demurrer is sustained to a complaint,
and the plaintiff. without leave of court to
amend, flies fresh complaint, the grievance of
which is the same as that demurred out, bnt
which is styled third paragraph, this
third paragraph will be regarded as
having superseded the original COM
plant, and by fling it the plaintiff will be con-
sidered as waving exceptions to the ruling on
demurrer, W. Inc complaint aHegeS JOdb
plaintiff entered into agreement to form a
partnership with two others, the purpose of
which was to secure the contract for building a
free gravel road. One was to attend the letting,
secure the contract, and plaintiff and his assO-
ciates would go on the bond. The contract was
secured, the bond signed. ETC.; that the contract
was worth $3. 600, but the defendants refuse to
allow plaintiff to participate therein; that but
for this agreement he would have bid. No law
ful contract of partnership resulted from such
combination. No one can predicate an enforce
able right on such an agreement
JURIsDICTIoN-TowNSHIP TRUSTEE-EvIDENCE.
1857. Board OF County Commissioners of
POsey County vs. Michael Harlem et al. Posey
c. G. Affirmed Howk. c. 1.-The subject
matter in controversy was a claim against the
county of Posey for necessary supplies fur
nshed by appellees to the poor of such county,
on the orders of the trustee of Black township,
and the Circuit Court of Posey county, under
the statute (Secs 575S-60. 5769) had jurisdc-
tion. (2. In suit against a board of commits
sioners, to recover for supplies furnished the
trustee were admissible in evidence part of
the transaction there being proof aliunde that
the supplies we're furnished to persons lawfully
entitled to receive them.
1901. Charles Z. Gilmore ct al. VS.. John
Kidd, administrator. Marion S. c. Dismissed.
12842 j. D. Curtis administrator, vs. Straw
der Cheek. Dearborn G. c. Dismissed.
1928 L. ID. Thomas, administrators, vs. VIM.
H. Merry. Vigo G. G. Dismissed, with leave
to appeal over.