The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-09-24
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.

Supreme Court.
Hon. G. Y. Howk. G. J.
The following opinions were rendered Sept %;
Neutrality-suspicious. FUNDS
1871. Egsdius Naltner ct al We. Thomas J.
Dolan ct al Marion S. c. Affirmed Mitchell
J.-Where money belonging to a client was re-
ceived by an attorney in payment of a claim left
with him for collection, and the transmission OF
such money was arrested by garnisnee proceed
ings before an opportunity occurred fo- trans
uniting it, the attorney. having acted in good
faith and without any suggestion or fault or neg
lect is responsible for the continual solvency OF
the bank in which he had deposited the funds
In his own name, but without any designation
on the books of the bank as to the trust, not
withstanding the bank was in good credit when
the deposit was made.
RAILRoAD-APPRoPRIATIo
1858. Lake Erie-dS Western Railway Compa-
ny vs.. Margaret Griffin ct al. Carroll c. G. At
firmed. Howk, c. J.-This is the second appeal
81 Ind, 487. ILL., Where. upon a hearing had,
court of equity finds that new railroad cor
poration, upon its succession to the property.
rights and franchises of its predecessors, had
elected to adopt an appropriation of land made
by the old company, by its entry upon such
land, and by its continued use and occupation
thereof for the purposes OF its railroad to the
entire exclusion OF the owners OF the land from
the use thereof, and that in such appropriation
proceedings the value of said land had been de-
termined by the judgment of court of compe-
tent jurisdiction, the new railroad corporation Is
bound by such judgment upon the question OF
the value of the land. (2) The findings OF a
court of equity will not be disturbed on the
weight of the evidence. l3l The facts in the
case are not such that in equity and good con-
science an alternative judgment should be rem
dered permitting the railroad company to escape
the payment of the land by abandoning it and
ceasing to exclude appellees from its use.
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE.
an1
Aper. Tippecauoe G. G. Affirmed Niblack,
1.-THE newly discovered evidence assigned as
q cause for new trial Is cumulative and addi-
tional, but waving all question as to its crimu-
lative character it was conflicting, and its
weight was question for the discussion of the
trial court, which will not be reviewed.
EvIDENcE-NEw TRIAL.
1921 James D. Moore VS.. Keturah N. Har-
land ct al Clinton G. T. Affirmed. Elliott. j.
Il. II the introduction of evidence is an err
ror, it should be made q cause for new trial
u There is evidence sustaining the finding of the
court, and it will not be disturbed
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
1882 The Town of Rushville VS.. Mary
Adams. Rush c. c. Affirmed collars, j.
The town of Rushville licensed. and with knowl-
edge permitted person to carry on the business
of manufacturing candy on one of the streets,
and in said business to use tripod supporting a
vessel containing syrup, which was boiled and
manufactured into candy by means OF fire
built under the vessel. The plaintiff and hus-
band were driving on the street. when the horse
became frightened at the fire, ran away. injuring
plaintiff Action for damages. Held: That the
town was liable. t. A general averment in the
complaint that the injury not caused by any
negligence or carelessness of the plaintiff, but
was caused wholly by the negligence the
town in permitting the person to maintain the
business of making candy on the street, makes
the complaint good as against demurrer for
the want of facts