The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-11-13
Supreme Court.

1925. State OK rel. Cornelius Corwin VS.. Indiana
& Ohio oil gls aad mining company. Jay C. C. Nj
frmed. Elliott, c. J.
The act Of March 9, 1889, provides that it shall be
unlawful 10 pipe natural gas from any point within
to any point without the state. Any person cor
poration incorporated for the purpose of drilling
mining for petroleum or natural gas, or otherwise
acquiring gas petroleum wells to furnish the
products to patrons to convert such product into
gas for illuminating purposes OF fuel which shall
have acquired land for the purpose of laying pipe
lines which shall permit gas to be conveyed without
the state shall forfeit all title TO such land and the
same shall revert to the persons from whom it
was acquired Feb 81 1882 an act was passed decar-
inc that the word mining should be deemed TO in
cude the sinking OF gas wells On the same day an
act passed authorizing companies to extend
their pipes beyond the corporate limits OF towns and
cities. Feb. 20 an act was passed authorizing gas
companies to appropriate and condemn property.
Appellee claims that the act of March is invalid
because il is interstate commerce legislation, and
such legislation must be exclusively federal.
Natural gas is an article OF commerce. The sole
veying gas another state, and the provisions of
the act as the sinking OF wells is bound up with
the provisions designed TO effect the principal object
that separation can not be made without completely
destroying the statute and substituting another for
IL by judicial construction.
All Legislation in regulation Of commerce between
the states must be enacted by congress The act
cannot be deemed a legitimate excuse of the police
Movers The language OF the act forbids the
cusion that the legislature meant 10 do no more
than DENY the right OF eminent domain TO persons
DESTROYS to transport natural gas from Indiana The
transport natural gas another state The act can
not be sustained upon the principle that the state
may enforce restrictions on foreign corporations.
The act is held e. be invalid.
49, 0i. John S. Barr ct al. Ellen Van Alstine.
Allen c. G.. Affirmed. Berkshire, j.
When wife did not join her husband In mort
GAGE nor was made party to the foreclosure when
Surviving her husband, she is entitled to redeem
one-thrd interest in the land, his estate was less
than $4,000 within fifteen years from his death.
The purchaser was chargeable with the rents and
profits from the death Of the husband and the wife
was chargeable with the mortgage debt and interest
thereon at per cent per annum ana Tor taxes pad,
together with the costs OF improvements.
1880 Annie L. Nowlin ct al. VS.. Luman {.
Whpple ct al Dearborn {. C. Affirmed Mitch
ell J. :. a..
twenty years, but afterward under agreement with
the owner Il is used than thirty years. this con-
stituted a permissive under a license, which
cannot be adverse and will not serve as the basis OF
when the defendants erected and main
tanned gates at their own expense upon the
faith OF final agreement that they were 70
have a perpetual easement TO pass over the pam
TIM lands the agreement having been fully ex-
ecuted and acquiesced in by the parties who made
IL for more than thirty years, court oil equity VIII
not now permit the license TO be revoked.
I4e4O. Columbus NJ Pickett VS.. Thomas c. Green
ct AL Noble G. C. Affirmed. Cohey, j..
When contract Is complete upon Its lace stipu-
lation AZ 10 the consideration becomes c0ntractua,
and when there Is n direct and positive promise to
pay the consideration named or an ASSUME ton oi an
membranes on the part Of grantee In deed
which becomes binding upon its acceptance then the
ordinary rules with reference TO contracts apply ana
the consideration expressed can no more be voided
by parol than any other portion Of the written con-
tract
I3,si3. Jacob f. Marks Mary a. Orth eNecu-
trix. Tippecanoe C. c. Reversed Olds. J.
In suit on a note against the estate OF Godlove >
Orh for the purpose OF showing the whereabouts Oh
the maker at the time Of the transactions about the
note the defendant offered in evidence what pur-
ported 10 be the report OF the Paraguayan inveshga
Ian NJ which Mr.. Ortiz the maker OF the note, was
member, showing that he was with the committee.
II not authenticated or testified to by an officer
III Is not n publication record required by the
house Of representatives. Held II was inadmssihle
i4.92e. Andrew j. Avery vs. Indiana and Ohio
oil gas and mining company. Jay & c. Affirmed.
Elliott, G. J.
The Judgment 10 this is affirmed on the au-
thority OF state Va. Indiana, etc NO. lL92S)
ia s4s. Amy Castor Og Davis ct al. Boone G.
G. Rebcnring denied.