The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-10-27
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
supreme Court.
Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-jus
The following opinions were rendered Oct 26:

Supreme Court
hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-justice.
The following opinions were rendered Oct. &C.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
9279 The State ex rel Coe Adams, president,
etc., vs. The Mayor, etc.. of the City of Kokomo.
Madison G. c. Affirmed. Mitchell, J.-Ip as
certaining the number of resident freeholders so
as to determine numerically whether petition
for donation to a railroad company is signed by
majority, as required by Sec. 1853 r. S., all per-
sons resident within the city and owning free
hold interest in land therein must be counted.
DEED-MIsTAKE-coRREoT
1926. Martha Baker VS.. Nathan Fl. Pyatt.
Vanderburg c. G. Affirmed. collars j.
Where deed, by father to a son. in fam
lily settlement, contained description of land
not owned by the father, it was mistake of
fact Mistakes, denominated mistakes of law,
are such as are so defective as to convey moth
Ing The mistakes Of the parties are in suppos-
ing them to be suffcient-in other words, mis-
takes as to the legal sufficiency of the descrip-
ton used. u The father decided this land in
severalty to his children and they now hold it.
Ihe appellee holds the tract intended to be con-
Veyed to him by the father, but by mistake
not. All the other children except appellant
qultcaimed to him on the discovery of the
mistake. But for the family settlement ap-
pellee would hold as heir of his father If APP
pellant is permitted to hold her share and take
part of appellees share, the other children may
share In his portion also and reduce him to
nothing because of this mistake. EQUITY will
interfere to correct the mistake. 81 Where it
is shown that part OF the consideration for a
deed by a father TO a child was services by the
equity will intefere to correct a mistake in the
deed.
Observation-Disclosures
1886. T. II. & L. Railroad Company vs..
Elijah S. Bssell. Marshall G. G. Reversed.
Howk. Z. IA complaint against a railroad
I'M to ip 1av IL
tracks on the street along the property is bad
for failure to aver that the railroad company in
the construction of its tracks had entered upon
and occupied that part OF the street of which
plaintiffs claimed to be owners in fee. e.
Where the record shows that the bill of excep-
tons was presented to the judge within the sixty
days allowed and duly filed thirty days after
that time had expired, it is part of the record.
Sec. 629 Z. S. changed the practice
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
1926 David T. Kyle VS.. John A. Miller ct al
KOsciusko G. G. Affirmed. Elliott 1.-THE
question of the amount of damages sustained by
a land owner in highway proceedings is one for
the jury, under proper instructions from the
court, and where there is conflicting evidence
the Supreme Court will not interfere unless the
jury has been enormously instructed. (2.) If
there is conflicting evidence upon the public
utility of the highway, the verdict will not be
disturbed.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1862 Gideon W. Seayey ct al vs. Leonard
S. Walker. Huntington c. c. Affirmed.
Niblack, J.-When the vender remains in pos
session of the personal property sold it is incum-
bent on the purchaser to remove the presumption
of fraud resulting from such possession, when the
property is in controversy. (2) Evidence that the
purchaser had placed the goods in the hands of
an employe of the seller was immaterial, as
there had been no visible change of possession,
the goods remaining with the seller 1t was no
more than constructive change of possession,
which was not sufficient compliance with the
statute Sec. 49l1
1897 c., H. & I. Railroad Company VS.. the
State Vigo c. c. Motion to dismiss oyerruled