The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-02-11
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court.
Bon. w. A. Woods. Judge.
To-day-No special call.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Hon. w. L. Niblack. ghief-justice.
The following decisions were rendered Feb. 10:
1918 Hiram w. Davis VS.. Hiram J. Reamer
ct al. Floyd G. @. Affirmed Niblack, G. j.
Ill Where answers to special interrogatories
are antagonized by other answers which fully
sustain the general verdict, the answers ought to
be considered as whole, and cannot be treated
as inconsistent with the general verdict. q The
authority of person to receive goods at a land
ing extends to receiving the goods on wharf
boat stationed and used at the wharf.
1882 John Waymre ct al VS.. John w.
Powell Jasper G. c. Affirmed. Mitchell, j.
-Q.) Where the Board of Commissioners, of
their own motion, do an act which under the law
they may do or not. as in the exercise of their
discretion seems best. and the time and mode of
doing the act is not presented by law, no appeal
lies from their decision in such case But
when they make an allowance which is illegal
and appears so on its face, any aggrieved
may appeal t2l There can be no allowance to
a county commissioner for services voluntarily
rendered within the meaning of Section $40, Re-
vised Statutes and where board does make
such an allowance an appeal will lie.
1873 Pittsburg, Cincinnati & ST. Louis
Railway Company VS.. Jefferson Adams. Miami
Z. q. Reversed. Collars J.-(1.) If special
verdict includes findings of evidence conclu-
sons of law and matters without the issues,
such findings should be disregarded in the rendi-
those matters is not sufficient to support judg
ment venire de novo should be awarded. t.
Where special finding in action against
railroad company for personal injuries states that
plaintiff a section hand, was ordered by an agent
and employe OF defendant superior to plaintiff,
to couple the cars. the finding should be made
more specific as to the authority of the superior,
for master is not bound by the orders of an
employe directing co-employe to a different
and more hazardous work. unless such employe
has authority and occupies the position of vice.
principal to the master.
1888 The State VS.. Charles FL. Soudriette ct
al. Knox c. G. Reversed. Howk, IA for
feited recognizance executed for the appearance
of one charged with false pretenses, providing
that the defendant is bound unto the city of
Vincennes in certain sum, 'for having violated
an ordinance of said city," instead of providing
'bound unto the State of Indiana" ETC.. is not
thereby void.
1862. William S. Slanter VS.. Samuel Favor
lite. guardian. Fountain G. c. Affirmed. Ell
lott, J.-(1.) Guardians must be held to exercise
care and prudence in managing and investing
the money OF their wards, but they are not in
surers of the safety of investments made by
them, nor should they be held to an extraor-
binary degree of care. a. If guardian acted
in good faith and with reasonable diligence in
taking the mortgage, he cannot be held liable
solely on the ground that the mortgage which he
believed to be the senior one was made Junior
by the fraud of the mortgager. When
guardian has examined the records with
in ten days of the consummation of
loan, end the examination corroborated the
statements Of the borrower that the land was
unincumbered, he is not negligent in relying on
the statement of the mortgageOr thai there
were no membranes. a. lie a guardian does
not require . mortgageors wife to join in
mortgage, he must show to the court that the
husbands interest was ample security, to relieve
him from negligence. ~ A guardian must not
conceal any material fact, nor untruthfully rep
resent any matter to the court. If he conceals
the fact that the maker of note had become
insolvent, this is fraud. (6) An error in one
conclusion of law will not reverse when the
decision rests on another.
1892. Robert Small VS.. Charlotte S. Boyer.
Clark G. G. Dismissed under Rule a.
1906 Chas. e. Fisher ct al. VS.. Rufus K.
Syfers ct al. Parke G. G. Motion to dismiss
overruled.
12244 L., N. A. & c. r. r. Co. VS.. John
Frawley. Tippecanoe G. C. Certiorari issued.