The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-11-27
THE COURT RECORD
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

V-- w uCl OH oA1
man is induced to believe that another has
o cause of action against him, upon which
one who processes to be a lawyers says he Is
alb out to bring suit. and upon the sup
supposition that the facts were as repre-
scented. a sum of money is paid in order to
save himself from expensive, and, as 1t is
made to appear. %ruinous, litigation. when,
in fact, the other had no cause OF action
against him, it cannot be said that the
money was paid with full knowledge of the
the facts, and there is such fraud that the
money may be recovered back. 2. Whether
the alleged representations were such as
the plaintiff had a right to rely upon. or
whether they were of a character reasona-
bly, calculated to deceive such a person as
the plaintiff, were questions of fact for the
jury.
Evans. Allen e. c. Reversed. Olds j.
When n witness is rerecalled to testify as
to a particular fact, crOss-examlnatlon
should be limited TO the particular matter
testihed to by the witness. 2. A lot-owner
has the legal right to the support to his lot
from the adjoining land. If such support
be removed. and by reason of such removal
the lot caves and is injured, by reason or
which the lot-owner suffers damages, ne
has a right of action against the person re-
moving the support for the amount of the
damages sustained to the land. The meas
ure of damages is the diminution IN the
value of the lot or land. 3. In an action for
damages caused to lots by excavations by
an adjoining owner, an instruction that If
the defendant removed the lateral support
he would be liable to the plaintiff for
the damages resulting to the buildings
thereon. regardless of the manner in which
the same was done, whether the injury was
caused by the negligent and careless man
ner IN which the dirt was removed or
whether 1t was removed In a careful or
prudent manner. was erroneous.
1888. Caroline NJ. Sturgis. ct al. VS..
Wesley L. Work, ct al Allen c. I. Re
versed in part; affirmed in part. Mitchell
G.. il. When a testatOr described q tract
of land as the west half of the southwest
quarter of a certain section. township. and
range. extrinsic evidence is inadmissable
to show that the ~testator never owned that
tract, but did W the west half of the
northeast quarter, same section, township,
and range. 2. The ~testatOr in diSpOsing of
the remainder of his estate. provided that
"the residue of my real estate not hereto
fore disposed of 1 give absolutely in fee
simple to my sons, w. L. w. and T.. c.. w,
share and share alike" By a codicil he
provided, Il give, devise, and beeueath to
all my children and their issue, to share
and share alike all the residue of my estate,
not herein specifically devised and be-
queathed.' Held. that the last clause must
control the undispOsed-Of residue. 3. When
a testator in one clause of his will gave a
certain number of acres of lane to a daughter
and In another clause devised the remainder
of the tract to a son, but by cOdicil reduced
the number of acres bequeathed to the
daughter and in no wise changed the sub
sequent clause in favor of the son. Held,
that the modification of the first clause by
which the number of acres devised to the
daughter were reduced did not add any
thing to the second clause in favor of the
| son, and hence the acres taken from,the son
were not carried to the daughter by force
of the second clause.
1852. Samuel s. Harrell, administrator,
VS.. Ocy f. Seal. Franklin &C: Affirmed.
Elliott, IA legatee has a right. where q
current account of the administrator shows
that the legacy has been paid, to have the
mistake corrected. 2. The will is not the
foundation of the action. 5. Until final
settlement is made, accounts and reports of
administrators may be reviewed and errors
corrected.
1897. John Fl. Lindley VS.. Charles E.
KregelO. Marion s. G. Affirmed. Olds,
Under Sec. 312. II. ST., when there are
several defendants. and the court obtains
jurisdiction over one of them, it has juris-
diction over all others residing within the
State by issuing and serving process upon
them.
1858. State ex rel. John p. Howe VS..
Levi L. Bond. When money is paid to a
guardian by mistake, and it does not be-
long to his wards, the sureties on his bond
are not liable for its transportation.
COURT.
Room I-Hon. Napoleon B.. Taylor. Judge.
Sample Loftin VS.. John f. Sullivan ct al,
foreclosure. Verdict for plaintiff.
Room AHon. d. W. Howe. Judge.
Augusta Potenburgh VS.. Jacob A. En-
erick: suit On attachment bond. Verdict
for plaintiff for S75.
William Il. Peters ct al. VS.. Thomas o.
Stout. Judgment for defendant on cross
complaint, Quieting title. Judgment against
plaintiff for costs.
William Il. Peters ct al. VS.. Firman Stout.
Judgment for defendant on cr0ss-com-
plant, quieting title. Judgment against
plaintiff for costs.
Eowan G. Collins VS.. Warren Township.
Judgment for defendant on demurrer.
Judgment against plaintiff for costs.
Constantine Reiger VS.. Mary Trimpe; re-
plevin; appeal from justice of peace. On
trial by jury.
Room s-Hon. Lewis G. Walker. Judge.
E. L. Haseld, trustee. VS.. Austin f. Brad
ley; foreclosure. Judgment for SS7.6s.
VIM. II. Peters ct al. VS.. George +. For
ant on c~rOss-cOmplaint.
VIM. I. Peters ct al. VS.. Thomas O. Stout
ct al; to quiet title. Finding for defendant
on c~rOss-cOmplalnt.
Anna L. Chriss VS.. Richard d. Chriss; di-
yorce. Taken under advisement.
Ne,o Suits Filed.
Indiana National Bank VS.. William F..
StlltZ ct al; on note. Demand, 5000.
Minnie NJ. Boone vs.. Franklin z. Boone:
divorce. Allegation, failure to provide and
infidelity.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon. Livingston Rowland. Judge.
Frederick Miller ct al. VS.. Leopold Rauh
ct al. Dismissed by agreement at defend
ants costs.
John Giblin VS.. James Grammes ct al; re-
plevin. On trial by court.
Susanna Milling eft al. VS.. William A..
Clements ct al; ejectment proceedings. On
trial by court.
Notes from the Courts.
Samuel A. Schenck was yesterday ap-
pointed guardian of Clara NJ, Carrie nj.
and John l.. Schenck.
The trial of Daniel d. Rhynard, of Jack
son township. before Judge Woods and
jury was begun yesterday afternoon. He
is charged with cOunterfeiting.
The foreclosure suit of Sample Loftin
against John T.. Sullivan, involving the lat
ter's poultry-house and private residence,
was decided yesterday by Judge Walker in
Mr.. Loftin's favor.
In the case of NJ. f. Close VS.. Michael
Quinlan, a suit brought to recover s25, 600
damages for alleged malicious prosecution,
a jury in the United STATES Court yester-
day morning returned a verdict for the de-
PENDANT.
The suit of Frederick Miller against T..
Raugh IL Sons, to enjoin them from re-
building their fertilizlng establishment on
South East street. near the Belt. was dis
missed, by ageement, in the Circuit Court