The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-23
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Hon. w. Z. Eiblack, Chief Justice.
The following decisions were rendered Jan. o.
1896 Henry 2. Barton VS.. VIM. G. Anderson
ct al Marion S. G. Reversed as to Indiana
Banking Company affirmed as to others. Nib
lick, G. J.-Where the holder of tax title suffers
a default in a suit to foreclose mortgage which
is prior lien on the land he is concluded from
asserting any interest in the property. and a con-
veyance of the title by him after the foreclosure
the tax duplicate is described as 'l2O IT. WASN'T
St sw. cor. out Co., parol evidence is admissible
to explain the authorizations.
1878 Albert w. Alexander ct al. VS.. Elijah
Schwackhamer Marion S. c. Affirmed Mitch
ell, Nov. IL, 1883, Schwackhamer. a farmer,
OF Clinton county, owned forty head of cattle.
A man calling himself johnson, representing
himself as member of the firm of Fort, John
son 81 Co., who were general commission sales
men of live stock at Indianapolis, called at
Schwackhamer's farm, and proposed to buy his
cattle for said firm. After a price had been
agreed upon the owner was told by the pre-
tended johnson that he carried money, and
that he would have to give check. This ar
rangement not being satisfactory, it was agreed
that the owner should telegraph the firms
bankers as to their responsibility, and that
the cattle should remain his property until paid
for Sch wackhamer dispatched, and receiving
a satisfactory reply accepted check. He turned
over the cattle to the purchaser, who said, IF
this check is not promptly paid, the cattle are
yours until you get your money" The cattle
were shipped. and in the presence of the owner,
bill of lading was delivered to johnson billing
the cattle to Fort johnson 81 Co., in care of
Zeigler. The cattle were shipped direct to the
consignees. The check was returned unpaid as
forgery. In the meantime the pretended
johnson presented himself to Fort johnson 81
Co., as John Zeigler, and procured them to sell
the cattle on commission to Alexander d Go.
Both firms acted in good faith. Alexander 81
Co., in course of business, shipped
the cattle East Suit by Senwack-
hamer against Alexander & Co., for conversion.
Under the facts there was no contract Of sale to
the spurious representative of Fort, Johnson 81
Co. He did not propose to buy on his own ac-
count, nor did plaintiff contemplate sale to
him. The plaintiff contracted upon the suppose
ton that he was selling to Fort johnson & Co.,
through the agency of member OF the firm.
No sale was made to Fort. johnson & Co., and
as no other wastproposed, none was made. The
contract was wholly void. By means of trick,
delivered to another by the plaintiff,
while the title and ownership re-
manned in him. When Fort, johnson g. Co.
sold the cattle to Alexander & Co. for the bene-
fit of the fraudulent possessor. they sold no bet
ter right than he had. When Alexander & Co.
sold the cattle TO which plaintiff had perfect
TITLE and received the money, they received
money of plaintiff. This amounted to a CONVEX
sion of plaintiffs property for which they are
liable The fact that possession of plaintiffs
property was obtained by the fraudulent prac-
tees alluded to. and under the circumstances
which did not affect his title. could invest the
wrong-doer with no such apparent authority as
to enable him by any means to communicate any
right or title to another.
1900 Monoah Frank, administrator, VS..
jeremiah Grimes. Allen c. G. Reversed.
Howk, J.-Where the transcript shows that in
terrogatories were answered by the jury. their
answers the signature Of their foreman,
were returned by them into court with their gen.
eral verdict and recorded with the verdict. and
that the attention of the trial court directed
to the special findings of the jury by the plaintiffs
motion for Judgment non obstante veredicto, but
is silent whether the court ever submitted
such interrogatories or instructed the jury to
swer, the presumption will be INDUCED that the
court did its statutory duty. and the special find
ings will be regarded as properly in the record.
~. The special findings and the general verdict
cannot be reconciled, so the cause must be re-
versed.
1865. N. Y. & G. Railroad Company vs. Re-
becca Doane. Kosciusko G. G. Motion to dis
miss overruled. Elliott, Jan appeal taken
within year from the time of the overruling of
the motion for new trial will not be dismissed.
1880 L., N. A. g. c. Railway Company VS..
Albert T. Pedigo. Marion s. G. Motion to dis
miss and continue overrued.