The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-21
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court.
Hon. w. A. Woods. Judge pro tenn.
To-day-No special call.
Supreme Court.

supreme COurts
Hon. G. v. Howk, Chief-iustice
The following decisions were rendered June TO-
1887 John R. Harris ct al vs. Orlando w.
Casady. Clay C. G. Affirmed. Elliott, IA
promise by sureties on judgment to pay the
Judgment is not sufficient consideration to sup
port mortgage given by one upon whose prop.
erty void levy had been made. The release OF
such levy by the sureties would constitute no
consideration
13042. John Miller vs. State Fountain G.
c. Reversed. Mitchell 1.-THE affidavit on
information for selling liquor TO one in
the habit of becoming intoxicated charged
that the liquor was sold to one
John Miller by etc, then and there citizen of
the township in which he lived, etc. The pro-
noun ''he" evidently refers to Stevenson, not
Miller, and the affidavit is not bad. The evil
dence fails to show that Stevenson " as in the
habit of becoming intoxicated, or that Miller or
his agent knew that Stevenson drank there.
1903 Olivia Hutchinson vs. j. Augustus
Lemke ct al. Vanderburg G. G. Affirmed:
collars, J:-Action to recover the undivided id
one-half of the southwest one-half of lot sc in
the old plat of Evansville. In 1888 appellants
husband, Hutchinson, and one Amory owned lot
So as tenants In common. In lo4O Amory con-
veyed to Hutchinson and wife, in fee, his inter
est in the said one-half. Hutchinson being in
debted to Alvin and Willard Carpenter. gave
them what is contended to be a trust deed and
mortgage. Hutchinson died, leaving Carpen-
ters' debt unpaid. The lot was not sold, as the
deed provided, in case of non payment In 1872,
one Coleman, as administrator, filed bill in the
Probate Court against appellant, her children
and the Carpenters. alleging in effect that
Hutchinson's personally was insufficient to pay
his debts that certain part of the Carpenter
debt was usurous, and that the deed be declared
O mortgage, and that he might sell the lot. By
default it was so decreed and sale ordered.
The sale was to Willard Carpenter, and con-
frmed, and the evidence shows he took posses
sion. Subsequent purchasers from Carpenter
had no notice of appellants rights as widow.
Under the law in force at the time the Probate
Court ordered the sale, and until the statute of
1852 the widow did not take in fee any portion
of her husbands real estate, but only dover
authority to order the sale of and direct the con-
veyapce of thefee to the whole of the real estate
Of which the appellants husband died seized.
The bill showed upon its face that appellant
was widow of deceased, and while that might
show that she was entitled to dover, it would
not show her to have any other interest in the
half lot. The bill was not notice to the court,
nor to any one of her rights under the deed from
Amory. She was owner of an undivided one
half Of the half lot by that deed and the death of
her husband, and not by her marital relations.
The purpose of the bill was to settle the title
that half might be sold. It notified her that
the administrator was claiming the whole half
lot; she knew she took nothing except under the
deed, and, having defaulted, she cannot now be
heard to say that she is the owner Of the undi-
vided one-half of the half lot, and that tie sale
was nullity
1920. Sarah A. Long VS.. Frederick W.
Strauss ct al. Noble c. G. Rehearing denied.