The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-25
Tho Court Record.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.


Hon. J. A. Mitchell. Chief-ustice.
13025. Milton l.. Sims VS.. Jacob Dame. Gin.
ton c. q. Affirmed. Niblack J-When a
complaint Is not signed or is not sworn to, when
It's veri1cation in that manner in required, the
proper method of raising question upon the
defect 10 by motion TO strike out or reject the
pleading. 2 A partnership has broader. more
comprehensive and more continuous purpose in
view than the mere Joint or common ownership
OF single article or aggregate of property An
owner In common, as well as a joint owner of
personal property. may sell his undivided inter-
est, but cannot sell or otherwise dispose of the
whole property without authority from his CO.
tenant or cotenants. When one owner in COM
mon or a chattel converts the whole TO his own
exclusive use, or does something equivalent to
an utter denial of the rights of his coowuer he
becomes liable to such co-owner for the injury
thereby inflicted. g. Where there is no counter
claim, motion In arrest of Judgment must be
addressed TO the plaintiffs pleadings, and ought
not TO be sustained unless the paragraphs of the
complaint are so bad as not to be cured by the
verdict or finding.
y l4l33 Lenson Johnson VS. the State. Knox
z. e Affirmed Howk, J.-1ndictment for vio-
lation of the telephone &C. of 1885 The facts
were that Lutte Vile rented of defendan, ard
used at his store in the city of Vincennes IN
August, 1887. one telephone. He was given a
printed notice showing that defendant divided
ing each class uniform monthly rental OF a.
to which rental he added monthly sums ranging
in the different classes from 80 cents TO So ner
month for non-subscribers. Vile belonged TO
notice: "Class three, seventy-five TO ninety
messages per month, SO per month rental
81 per month; for non subscribers. 81 Defend
ant collected 81 per month rental A number of
outsiders used the telephone each month in
their own business. The defendant testified
that % of the sum collected each month was for
the use OF the telephone by him and 81 for use
by the outsiders; that he kept account of all
messages sent from WiIes's store and that one
third was sent by outsiders. Held the appellant
was guilty of violating the statute in charging
In excess of SO for rental of telephone
1853 l. b. a. w. Rail way Co. VS. Nancy
Anderson ct al. Fountain G. c. Affirmed Ell
lott, J.-Un der the code the survivors NAV
bring an action joint contract without
Joining the heirs or representatives Of the de-
ceased oblgee The code has not changed the
common law rule in this respect q Where A
party agrees to construct and maintain a river
emoankment or do other work upon it, and the
circumstances are such show that il
was the intention of the parties that the en-
pankment should be so maintained as to pre-
vent overfows and that il might
De used as a roadway the like, the promising
party is answer able for the consequences result-
Ing from tse action of freshets and floods apon
the emOankment 3. When a railroad som-
pany agreed to construct and maintain a cuivert
nj certain place IL was bound to do so and to
make 1t reasonably effective for the purpose it
was intended to accomplish, so that il is not ex-
eused although accident and natural causes NAV
have made the work more difficult than sup
posed
1888. Patrick Burns. administrator. VS.. G.