The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-23
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court.
Hon. w. A. Woods Judge.
To-day-No special call.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court
bon. G. V. Howk. Chief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered June %:
1898 Walter L. Fosdyke, assignee, vs. John
L. Nixon. Fountain c. G. Affirmed Howk,
O. J.-Where a voluntary assgnor executed
power of attorney to one for the purpose of COM
promising his debts and effectng a settlement
with his creditors under agreement that the
creditors should accept twenty five cents on the
dollar in full satisfaction, taking promissory
notes OF a kinsman OF the assignor therefor and
that all the creditors failed to sign. it should
yet be binding the s:gners. such agreement
will be upheld and the maker of the notes is en-
titled to enforce the collection Of amounts paid
out of the estate in the hands of the assignee.
1900. Edward E. Powell vs. City of Madison
ct al. Jefferson G. G. Affirmed. Nlblack, j.
The Common Council of the city of Madison
passed an ordinance in March, 1886 that,
whereas since the 14th of March 1881, the city
had been greatly indebted beyond 2 per cent. on
her taxable property, and being without means
for the payment of the same, it would be best
TO fund said Indebtedness into per cent. bonds
This action was taken under Sections 3230-l, Ii.
>. The appellant, as taxpayer, asked an In
junction on the grounds that the constitutional
amendment of 1884, prohibiting cities from in
curing more than 2 per cent. indebtedness,
modified the above section as to prohibit cities
from issuing bonds and funding their
debts when above 2 per cent. The issu-
ing of new bonds to provide at their
par value for the payment of an old debt is not
in any legal sense the creation of any new IN
debtedness. Nor is the funding of interest due
on the execution of coupons for the payment OF
interest which will thereafter accrue upon pre-
existing Indebtedness either the creation of a
new debt or an increase of such pre-existing
debt The constitutional amendment did not
have Retrospective effect upon the existing
debt of municipal corporations It's operation
was prospective. The effect of the amendment
upon the above sections to limit their ap-
plications to Indebtedness of a city or town
which had been contracted prior to March IA,
1881.
1865 Rachael Atkinson vs. Charles Daley
Benton c. G. Affirmed. Mitchell, J.-Action
for services in prosecuting an action for divorce
The instructions complained. The court re-
views them, and holds that. construed together,
they are good.
1879. William F. Daggett VS.. Jacob Bone
WITT ct al Knox G. G. Affirmed. Elliott j.
16 in every township to the inhabitants of the
township for school purposes, at once vested til
tie in the inhabitants, unless they were disposed
of prior to that date, and patent to the land
subsequently issued, is without force. (2.) A
letter written by the Register ofathe Land Office,
offered in evidence TO prove that other lands were
substituted was incompetent a. because the
provisions of the act were accepted and title
vested prior to the letter. ~ because mere re-
cital of past occurrence in letter is not evil
dence to prove that it actually occurred
13088. VIM. H. Bird VS.. State. Montgomery
G. c. Reversed. collars AN instruction
calling attention to the fact that in weighing the
testimony of the defendant that he is defendant,
and that If his testimony, when compared with
all the other facts and circumstances, is consist
ent and harmonious. it may have controlling
weight in deciding the case. is error, as saying
that his testimony could not be taken of con-
trolling weight unless consistent, etc.