The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-09-22
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court


Hon. G. Y. Howk. G. j.
REDENPTIoN-wIFEs INTEREsT-JuDIcIAL SALE.
1905. Rebecca NJ Buser ct al VS.. Silas NJ.
Shepard ct al Marion s. c. Affirmed Mitch
ell J.-Under the statute OF 1875, which vests In
a wife one-third interest in the lands of her hus-
band on judicial sale, the wife can rot redeem
the interest of her husband from the execution
sale. t. Where a mechanics lien attached be-
fore the act of 1870 was passed it covered the
whole property-not two-thirds-and that act
could not impair the special lien. A bill to re-
deem from the sale under the foreclosure of the
lien must show that the person seeking to re-
deem has subsisting interest in the land, de-
rived Immediately or remotely from the person
whose contract created the lien. The only ale
cation in the bill in this case, which connects the
plaintiff with the title is that at the time of the
| sale Jacob Buser was the fee-simple owner, and
the plaintiff was his wife. Her right to redeem
does not appear, more than one year having
elapsed since the sale.
RAINAGE-BoND-sURETY.
1868 Louis Schmeck vs. Elkhart Cobb
Jackson G. G. Reversed. Howk, c. IA sim
gle freehold surety is sufficient under the stat
ute of 1881, which requires petitioner for a
drain to file bond with sufficient freehold
sureties," etc, and it was error to dismiss Pc
tition therefor.
RAILROAD JURISDICTION.
12049. T., B. & w. Railway Company VS..
VIM. R. Foster Warren G. O.. Affirmed FOL
lars J,-An actlOn against a railroad company
for injury from fire which spread to the plant
ifs land and destroyed fences, growing pasture
and hay sets forth an injury to real estate with
| in the meaning of Section BOT, and the court of
the county where the land was situate had juris-
| dction. The hay was personal property, but
| joining this with the other action could not
| transfer the cause to another county where the
| defendant had residence.
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
| 1851. Ellen j. Spencer ct al VS.. Joseph Nc
| Gonagie. Adams G. G. Affirmed. Elliott, j.
| In 1896 the real estate In dispute was owned by
Calvin Down, who died interstate. leaving a
WIDOW, Jane and several children. The widow
filed petition for partition, but partition could
| not be made, and sale of the land was ordered,
| the widow becoming the purchaser and assuming
mortgage. In 1859 she married James Spencer,
and they conveyed to William Frazee, who con-
veyed to Spencer. No consideration was paid
| Mrs. Spencer. her husband agreeing to assume
the mortgage At Spencer's death the court or
dered all his property to be delivered to his
| widow. She then married Alfred Hill dying in
testate In 1876 One daughter by the first mar
riage bought out the other heirs and her gran tee
is appellee defendant in this suit for partition.
| Mrs Spencer took the land by purchase, not de-
| scent. Her husband acquired the same title as
his wife had, and his heirs were entitled to the
| land, not the heirs of Down. The second hus-
| band had valid title. The court which vested
| the property in Mrs. Spencer at her husbands
death had jurisdiction, and its order cannot be
coliaterally impeached. The effect of this order
| was to vest title in Mrs. Spencer. which de-
scended to her heirs, one of whom was appellee's
| grantor.
| STREETS-CHANGE OF GRADE-LIABILITY OF
CITIES TITLE-IDEM sONANS.
1857. City of Lafayette vs. Daniel P. Wort
| man. Tppecanoe S. c. Reversed. Niback,
J.-Cities have not now, and since the enactment
of Section 3073 have not had the lawful right to
change the grade of street or alley which has
| once been regularly established without first
having the damages which will result to adjacent
| property owners assessed and rendered. The
change of the established grade of street or al
| ley, without first having the prospective dam
| ages assessed and rendered. has be-
| come an unlawful act for which dam
| ages may be recovered by any
| party whose property may thereby be injured.
| ~ In suit for such damages the plaintiff of
| fered in evidence deed to him for the lot in
iured. but offered no proof that the grantor was
in possession at the time of the execution of the
deed, or that plaintiff ever took possession.
This was a palpable failure of proof of title in
| plaintiff. (3. The names Workman and Work
man not idem sonans, and in the absence of
evidence it will not be presumed that plaintiff
was intended when Workman was named in the
engineers report.