The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-05-30
charged with selling liquor without license. The
accused gave bond for $500 to wait the action OF
the grand Jury.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Hon. ". T.. Nrblack. Chief-iustice.

non. W. 4. N1biacks ChleI-Jusuce.
1906 John E. williams vs. James W. Lewis
ct al; Switzerland 6. {. Affirmed. Mitchell,
judgment is obtained against one
partner for an individual debt and execution is
sued upon which partnership property was sold,
the TACT that another partner standing by de-
ton defendant. and acquiesced in the sale, while
IL might estop him to assert title as against an
innocent purchaser. IL will not estop the other
partners, unless it is known to and ratified by
them. nor can such acquiescence bind the others
who had no notice.
1851. Lemusl II. Willis ct al. VS.. Thomas
K Cushman. Sullivan c. C. Affirmed. Howk,
. debtor was discharged In bank
ruptcy his moral obligation to pay a debt ex-
tinRuished by the bankruptcy proceedings was
o sufficient consideration to support a new note
given therefor. and while the new note revived
the original debt, the rights and remedies of the
parties to such new note must be measured and
governed by the statutes affecting their rights
and remedies in force at the time the remedy is
sought. Therefore, although the $500 exemption
law was in force at the date the original debt
was contracted the exemption of the defendant
would be COVER ned by the law in force at the
date the remedy was sought, which was 5000.
1925. VIM. Britton vs.. State ex rel. Mary
u. Rowe. Montgomery G. G. Affirmed Howk,
Jan infant plaintiff may, upon showing to
the satisfaction of the court that she is q poor
person, not having sufficient means TO prosecute
her action, be admitted by the court to prose-
cute as a poor person without having . next
friend.
1916. Jonathan B. Houston vs.. VIM. Simp-
son ct al. Lawrence c.. G. Affirmed. Elliott,
jim an action to set aside a will evidence of
the physician attending the ~testator in his last
illness, to. prove the mental and physical coddi-
ton of the patient, is inadmissibie.
1902. Robert T. Hammons ct al. va. VIM.
A. Blgelow ct al. Jay G. G. Reversed. Eli
oft, J~.-Complaint to foreclose q mortgage,
which alleges that latter the execution OF the
- 49,. " $1,000 A.
mortgaged premises of Starr and as part of the
purchase money agreed to pay and discharge
the mortgage" There is no allegation that the
land was conveyed to Hammons. Held, that
the complaint should show . conveyance to
Hammons as q consideration to support his
promise. Held, also. that such = suit cannot be
maintained against a husband and wife as sole
defendants without averring that they received
the conveyance or acquired title to the land.
1925. Samuel +. Brannon VS.. Kokomo,
Greentown e jerome G. r. Company. Affirmed.
Howard c. c. collars J.-Appellant was in a
spring wagon with four other persons, owned
and driven by one Braunon. Tho horses drawing
the wagon were but three years old, and one OF
them was not gentle. Brannon, who was driv-
ing, was considerably intoxicated, and when
near the toll gate on appellee's gravel road and
intending to pass the gate without paying toll,
he stopped the horses, and without speak
ing to them, struck them with o whip,
which caused them to start and 60 in a
iOpo pasolnS IN Bdtos u tOl-ehIIoEoE
to prevent their passing gate without
pay suddenly drew down the pole, which struck
the front end of the wagon and threw out all the
occupants. Suit by appellant for damages for
$50. Held, that the facts fail to show that ap-
pellant was not guilty OF contributory negli-
gence. Held. also, that it cannot be said as a
matter of law from the facts that the appellee's
servant willfully inflicted the injury.
1924. Julia A. Cutsinger VS.. John Ballard ct
al. johnson G. c. Affirmed. Mitchell. j.
CraotGn ~arfnrunarna ~ ~ anal nnaa-o.% 90 49,
vey land will not be decreed unless the terms Of
the contract are either admitted or established
by clear, definite and satisfactory evidence. The
party seeking TO enforce performance must provo
the contract substantially as laid in the plead
ing by satisfactory evidence. and he must in
like manner show such q part performance on
his part of the identical contract set MP In and
such acts done in reliance thereon as that in
justice would be done and q fraud perpetrsted
under the statute of fraud. Although a contract
for the conveyance OF real estate may rest in
parol, yet when IL 10 fair in all its parts and the
purchaser has paid tho consideration aud has
been put into possession under the contract and
has made lasting and valuable improvements 10
reliance thereon, the contract is not within the
statute. When tho party continued in open
and notorious possession for more than twenty.
six years, during which time he claimed and
used the land ss his own. the statute can have
but slight if any influence upon such a case ],
1928. Cyrenius Elliott VS.. Charlotte Gregory,
Posey c. G. Reversed. Niblack, G. J.-Where
a married woman agreed to pay for medical
services rendered her, she is liable.
1925. Harvey w. Alexander VS.. Town OF
New Castle. Henry c. G. Affirmed. Niblack. c.
Heavenridge with gaining and procuring the
appointment OF special constable; arrested
Heavenridge. who was convicted and
ordered committed, to the county
jail. Plaintiff proceeded to take Heaven
ridge to the Jail as ordered and in doine
so attempted to pass q pit or excavation on TIE
side of . street which the town had negligently
allowed to remain open, when Heavenr1dge
seized him and threw him in the pit. Suit
against the town for injuries. Held, that
Heavenridge was an intervening as we'll as in.
dependent human agency in the infection of the
injuries and plaintiff was not entitled to re-
cover.
132O7. John Roushlange VS.. Chicago & Allan.
tic Railroad Company. Lake. e.. c. Reversed.
collars, IA railroad company constructed it;
road upon It's right of way. and in order to pre-
vent its road-bed from sinking in the marshy
ground made repairs which encroached upon the
plaintiffs land. which was not included in the
grant. Held, that a complaint for damages
against the company is good although it failed
to allege negligence. Howk and Mitchell, j.,
dissent.
UPERIoR COURT.
Room. I-Hon. N. B. Taylor. Judge.
st. Johns Manufacturing Company vs. Franz
II. Selden; on draft. Finding and judgment fol
plaintiff for $40. 50.
Room 2-hon. d. w. Howe. Judge.
Geo. r. Root VS.. City of indianapolis and
Union Railways Company; for damages. Or
trial by jury.
Room 3-Hon. Lewis @. Walker, Judge.
The City VS.. Carl Palmer; on penalty. Jury
found for defendant
The City vs.. Salvaster Bruno; on penalty
Cause dismissed.
Otto McCaull VS.. Frank McCaull; divorce.
Granted on grounds of abandonment
John Haesloop W. Geo. Rickenback, ct al; &C
count. Jury ont.
NEW SUITS FILED.
John w. Smith ct al. VS.. John Kraft ct al.
complaint on note. Demand, $406.
Julia Steoleton VI. Charles Stebleton: com
plant for divorce. Allegation. abandonment.
Joseph A. Lingle vs.. Lizzie Lingle; complain
for divorce. Allegation, cruel treatment
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon. Thomas l.. Sullivan, Judge.
VIM. III. Corbaley VS.. Andrew Oehler; suit Il
recover pay for services as an election inspector
Trial BY court Under advisement
John Brennan va. Daniel Fl. Prunk ct al; al
legged unlawful possession of real estate. Dis
missed for want Of prosecution.
Joseph A. Moore admitted to bar on motion O
Chas. E. Barrett.
Articles of Incorporation.
Articles of incorporation for the East Plan