The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-10-06
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

Ine following opinions were rendered OCT. d:
BREACH OF covENANTs-REs ADJUDIcATA
1868 Alexander Bever vs.. Benjamin North
Fountain G. G. Affirmed Elliott I'LL An
acknowledgment is essential to entitle deed
to go upon record but it is not essential to give
effect to the deed as between the parties. q. J
Where an action to recover real estate is brought
by one claiming TO be owner, and the grantee
duly notifies his grantor, the latter is bound by
the judgment, and the grantor, if evicted, need
not appeal, but may his covenants.
49, Whether the issues shall be opened and adj
ditonal pleadings filed is matter within the
discretion of the court. "a In a suit on cove
nants of warranty evidence by the grantor that
the plaintiff knew of the claim against the land,
which was the interest of defendants grantor's
wife, and agreed TO assume it is inadmissible as
contradicting the terms of the deed. The inter
est of the wife cannot be regarded as an incum-
brance; it is an estate In the land itself.
APPEAL-GENERAL TERM-AssIGNMENT OF Err
ROR.
12407. Patsey Patterson, administrative VS..
The Scottish American Mortgage Company,
limited. Marion S. c. Affirmed Niblack, J..
An assignment of error in the Supreme Court
on an appeal from the general term of a Supe-
rior Court that the court below had no jurisdic-
ton OF the subjectmat of the suit, presents
no question when the only error assigned in gen.
eral term was overrul1ng the motion for new
trial. This court will not consider any error
which was not properly presented at general
term. The only error to be assigned here,
is that the court at general term erred either in
affirming or reversing the Judgment rendered at
special. (2) Sustaining a demurrer or improp-
erly refusing to modify erroneous Judgment
are not causes for a new trial. 81 The ad-
minstrat riX admitted on the trial for a fore
closure of the mortgage that the allegations in
the complaint were true; that the signature of
decedent to the notes and mortgage was genuine,
but denied the right to recover costs and attor-
ney's fees. This supplied ali the proof of the
execution OF the notes, etc, required by statute
IN regard to claims against deeedent's estates.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1274l James T. Crafty vs. City of Rush
vile. Rush G. G. Reversed Mitchell. j.
o. Any method of selling goods, wares or
merchandise by outerying on the streets or pub
lie places in city, or by attracting persons to
purchase goods exposed for sale at such places
by placards. or signals, or by going from house
to house, selling or offering goods for sale at re-
tail to individuals not dealers in such commodi-
ties, whether the goods be carried along for
delivery presently or whether the sales are
made for future delivery, constitutes
me me person ;.s, 50 selling hawker or
statute regulating the ringing of bells and cry
| ing of goods and restraining hawking and ped
ding. t. Neither States nor municipalities
can enforce any law or ordinance the effect of
which is to embarrass commercial communica-
ton between the different States. to discrmi-
nate against the products of one State, or exact
| licenses from persons residing in foreign States
which are not required of its own citizens under
like circumstances. The city of Rushville passed
an ordinance providing that any person who
sold, or hawked, peddled any goods, wares,
etc., Which were not of the growth or manufact-
ure of Rush county, about its streets without a
license, should be fined, etc. Held void.
PLEADING-CoNvERsIoN
1201L John F. Bixel vs. Adam c. Bixel Mar
shall @. @. Affirmed. collars, Under a
complaint charging a wrongful conversion of
property there can be no recovery where the de-
PENDANT was riehtfully in possession and author
lied to sell the property, although he did not APP
ply the proceeds to the payment of debts rs
directed.
LOST ENT-NOTE-CONTRACT
1854 William B. McComas vs. Jacob Haas
Montgomery G. G. Affirmed Howk, III
When the special findings are consistent with
the general verdict it will stand. (2l Uncon-
tradicted evidence that letter had been filed
with the papers in the clerks Office, but after
search could not be found, sufficiently shows
that it was lost AMI its contents may be proved
g. Where note provides that it is given in con-
sideration of and subject to a certain contract,
the burden is on the assignee to show that his
assignor performed, or was ready to perform, his
part OF the contract before he can recover
1896 John Hit ct al vs. City Of LaPorte
ct al. LaPorte G. G. Dismissed.