The Indianapolis journal., 1889-02-01
The Court Record.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
James w. Manifold ct al. VS.. James T.
Jones. Madison T.. &. Affirmed. Elliott,
G. jim an action to quiet title, if there is
a valid outstanding lien or title In favor of
any defendant, the action must fail. An
answer setting up such lien OF title is good.
Where real estate is taken by a devisee under
will charging certain payments on 1T TO the
decedents' estate, such sums are liens on
from the devisee If the devisee. being ex-
ecutor of the will, charge himself, as exec
utbr, with such sums. it is a payment, and
the land is discharged from the
lien. His bond as executor vas
owning the. fee of real estate may
have his title quieted against certain
persons. though it be subjected to lien in
favor of others not parties to the action.
to defeat the action by one having no inter-
est therein. lien in favor of an estate, of
which there is an executor. Is only avail
able to defeat an action against the estate;
heirs or devisee cannot take advantage of
No. 1887. Joseph Lewark VS.. George III.
Carter ct al Marion 5. Z. Affirmed. COf-
few, J.-Thcre is no warranty in judicial
sales: if the debtor has no interest none
passes by the sale, and If the sheriff sells In
good faith he is not responsible to the pur-
chaser for defects in title. A sheriff in con-
Quoting a judicial sale is not the agent of
the judgment-creditor in such sense as TO
make such creditor responsible for his rep
resentations in the absence OF proof that
they were made by his procurement. Rep
resentations by deputy, sheriff while
making q sale cannot be charged to the
sheriff; such representations are not within
No. 1887. The Phoenix Insurance Com
pany vs. Chas. A. Rowe. POsey &. e. Af-
firmed Mitchell, J.-In a complaint on an
insurance policy the allegation that from
II 4 g he ,ul- mt tfaI Iac otro
the plaintiff had an insurable interest. as
the owner thereof, TO its full value is a suf-
ficient allegation of ownership, even
though the policy provided that If the in
sured shall not be the sole and uncondi-
this noI;cV G shall be void" The failure to
DENY, under oath, the execution of an in
surance policy, properly set out as the
foundation OF the action IS an admission OF
No. 1873. WIN. III. Durham VS.. State ex
rel. ETC. Montgomery {. c. Petition for
rehearing Overruled.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room Hon y. B. Taylor. Judge.
Samuel Hanway VS.. Broad Ripple Natur-
al1gas Company. On .rlai; tILart g yo,nr. ami.
| on account. Judgment In sum of S5S7.46.
| Isabella Wallace VS.. John Wallace; dam
| age. Dismissed
| X. = Hill VS.. Martha r.. Robbins; suit 10
| quiet title. Decree quieting title
Room s-Hon. ID. W. Howe, Judge.
Oscar Neisler vs.. Lemser NJ. johnson. On
| trial by court.
Room s-Hon. Lewis c. Walker. Judge
| Michael Stabler VS.. c., st. l.. 81 p. Rail
road Company; damages. On trial by a
| jury.
| George W. Stout vs.. Norvill ID. Grubb et
| al: complaint in replevin.
! Levi III. Hamlin VS.. Charles Sauer; suit
on account. Demand. $40
susan ". Benson vs.. Conrad Wuln; com
| plaint for damages. Demand, $500.
Annie Hart vs.. Clinton Hart; complaint
| for divorce.
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Com.
pany vs.. Joseph A. Moore ct al; complaint
| and affidayits in attachment and garnish
! ment. Demand, sl5.45i1o.