The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-04
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
United States District Court.
bon. w. A. Woods. Judge.
To-day-No special call.
Supreme Court.
Hon. G.. v. Howk. Chief-justics.

~ NSy Aso SPoeioa ee.i''
Supreme Court.
Hon. G. v. Howk. Chief-justics
The following decisions were rendered June 3:
1926 Mary E. Wood vs.. John Beasley ct al.
Sullivan C. c. Affirmed. Elliott Twill: II
give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Mary E.
Foxworthy, the farm on which we now live, to
have and hold so long as she remains my widow,
after which my said real estate shall be equally
divided among my heirs" The will limits the
estate of the wife to the term of her widowhood.
A husband may, by Limitation. restrict the estate
of his surviving wife so that it shall terminate
when she marries The testator intended to de-
wise his wife the limited estate specifically des-
scribed and nothing more. She cannot be classed
with the heirs. The ante-nuptial contract upon
which the plant is based is confessed
to be invalid and the cross-compaintis therefore
bad.
1908 Henry Lyon vs.. John Lennon ct al.
Carroll G. G. Affirmed. Niblack, J.-One Len
non owned grain and elevator. He tes-
titled that he was not a warehouseman, and did
not store wheat for hire. The plaintiff delivered
to Lennon some wheat and received receipt:
Received of Harry Lyon SO bushels 80 pounds
wheat. Not transferable without notice"
There is evidence of any contract outside the
receipt. except such as is offered by the course
of business between the parties. Lennon testi-
fed that plaintiff would deliver him wheat and
take receipts Whenever receipts were presented
he would pay the market price of wheat at date
of presentation and take them up. Whenever
presentation was deferred beyond thirty or sixty
days. a small sum was charged for storage and
insurance All wheat of the same grade was
put into a common mass and shipped. An effort
was made to keep on hand amount eqnal to
outstanding receipts Lennon having plaintiffs
wheat. made an assignment Suit TO recover it.
Held: That the transaction constituted contract
of SALE and not bailmeEt Il When a contract
is ambiguous. it is presumed that it was made
with reference to known usages, and it is COM
petent to show what such known usages are.
1852. David June ct al vs. Benjamin NJ.
Payne ct al Montgomery c. c. Affirmed.
Niblack, J.-Iu 1881 appellants sought to re-
cover of Benjamin Payne and John PAYNE
engine made ty June & Co., of Ohio and the
defendants executed bond with sppellees as
sureties for return OF the engine to the plant
ifs or the sheriff il a return be adiudged Judg-
menJ of return awarded, appeal taken, and
appeal bond filed. No supersedeas was issued,
both parties seeming TO ayait the decision on
appeal After afirmance appeal one of
the defendants met plaintiffs attorney and
offered to return the engine to him or to plaintiffs
in Ohio The attorney told him he preferred
the money. A few days later this action was
brought on the bond executed for return of
the engine. Five days later the defendants de-
livered the engine to the sheriff. Verdict for
plaintiffs, assessing their damages at $50. An
appeal prayed for In term time and perfected
within the time allowed suspends further pro-
ceedines, and return of the engine to the
sheriff was performance of the principal con-
diton os the bond. The property must be
turned in as good order received under the
bond and within reasonable time after return
is awarded, without demand. What is reason
able time depends circumstances. Here the
evidence shows there was no unreasonable delay.
1914 Martha A. Spencer ct al. Vs. William
M. Robbins ct al. Sullivan c. G. Rehearing
denied.
1927. Samuel Kesser vs.. George Beam. Hen
nv G. c. Cause reinstated
Samuel S. Burdette Washington. d. c.. ad-
mitted to practice.