The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-23
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court Decisions.

Hon. j. A. s. Mitchell. hief-justice.
1887 David Nicholson Us. Margaret A
Nicholson. Marion S. G. Reversed. Mitchell,
c. appellant obtained divorce from appel
lee in the Marion Superior Court After bring
ing the suit appellant agreed with appellee that
he would dismiss the suit, and that she need not
take any steps to defend. Relying on this
promise, appellee did not defend, and appellant
took default and obtained a Judgment without
alimony, on Feb. 5, 1879. Several days after
wards when the February term of court was
adjourned, appellee learned of the decree.
When about to begin proceedings to set aside
the judgment appellant told her she had
no remedy, and if she would
forego her purpose he would make
ample provision for her. Appellant then mar
1879 appellee brought suit to recover the judg-
ment, but demurrer to her complaint was sus-
tanned. She then sought to set aside the judg-
ment in the Circuit Court. but that court had
jurisdiction. In 1888 this suit brought
to obtain relief from the decree or for damages.
Held that the facts would not justify the inter-
vention of the court to vacate the judgment
complained of because of the time which elapsed
without bringing suit after the plaintiff had
knowledge of the decree. Held. also. that the
first Judgment remaining in force estops ap-
pellee from proving the charges contained in
the complaint for damages.
1902 G. & E. I. r. r. Co. VS.. Joseph W. Os-
trander. Vigo S. c. Affirmed. Niblack, j.
The fact that answer TO special interrogatories
are contradictory or inconsistent with each 9th
er affords no ground for a venire de novo.
Where such answers are only contradictory or
inconsistent they neutraze each other and per-
NIT the general verdict to remain unlmpalred.
When the jury has failed to answer an appro-
pirate and material interrogatory, or has an
swered it effectively or imperfectly, or has
omitted to verify the answer in some suitable
way or place, by the signature of its foreman,
the proper practice is to object to the reception
of the verdict and the accompanying papers per-
tanning to the interrogatories. When tie YER
dict and such accompanying papers are received
without objection. the party complaining cannot
after wards have q venire de novo any other
relief from the failure of thu jury in any of the
respects stated. 1t is error to require jury to
answer an interrogatory which calls only for
legal conclusion, but in this case it was harm
less error
1850 City of Greenfield vs. Joseph R.
Moore. Hancock, G. G. Affirmed. Elliott, j.
When city entered into contract with q
tractor for the grading of certain Streets and
that the latter should collect the expense or
the improvements from adjacent lot owners, the
contract being valid on its face it is the duty of
the municipal officers to order and prepare
the proper estimates to enable the contractor to
collect the compensation
1904 Milton III. Shrk vs. VIM. Shultz. De-
catur C. c. Affirmed. collars J.-Appellanr,
an infant, entered into partnership with appellee
to deal 10 furnirute. In his complaint
herein he alleges that he is still minor; that
the firm has goods valued at $3.50 and is in debt
5000; that he renounces such arrangement and
asks to avoid his obligations; that appellee is in
solvent and that firm creditors will exhaust the
assets unless receiver is appointed; prayer
that receiver be appointed and that
appellant be first paid the amount in
vested by him, and second the firm debts.
appellant treats the goods and assets on hand
partnership assets and asks the court to take
charge OF and deal with them such. AS to
them he cannot disaffirm and at the same time
treat them as partnership assets. Having
treated them as assets the court will deal with
them such and apply them first to the pay
ment of firm debts.
1408S. Patrick Ward Thos. B. Lewis,
Marion S. c. Dismissed.
13S4S. Simeon Pedigo VS.. Silas Grimes. Mon
roe g. Q. Petition for rehearing dismissed