The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-04-01

promissory note governed by the law mer-
chant, who is in fact. q surety upon the
note for the other maker. but whose surety
ship 10 not In any way indicated in the note.
may avail himself of the statute tSec 1910.
and, by giving notice in accordance there
with. procure bis discharge from liability
on the note If the holder thereof, TO whom
the notice has been given, fail TO proceed
within reasonable time to bring his action
thereon. 2. Where the principal resided
In another county. and tho surety gave him
written notice to sue the principal in such
county. when court was in session for three
weeks after the giving of such notice, and
the action was begun in the county where
the surety resided two days after the notice
was given. and the court in the latter
county did not hold until two months later
held. that the plaintiff was requested to
sue in the county where the principal
resided. and his failure to do so was n fail
ure to proceed within a reasonable time to
bring the action.
A. G. 81 1479S.) Henry Regensberg VS..
Daniel Notes.-The. Allen C.. L. Reversed.
New. J.-Where the payer of a promiss DRY
note seeks to avoid his contract on the
ground of fraud, he must. when be dis
covers the fraud. rescind tie contract by
returning or offering to return the thing
purchased. He must avoid the contract as
q whole.
A. c. 81 C4s22., VIM. l.. Reed VS.. Town
OF Orleans. Orange c. C.. Reversed.
Crumpacker. J.-When town issued bonds
for sale. the trustees of the town had q
right to employ broker to effect their SALE
and the contract of employment need not
be in writing. The validity of the bonds
could not affect the compensation of the
broker
A. c. 50 l4sas) Mary V. Martin va Mont.
Bangl. Tippecanoe s. e. Reversed. Rein
hard. J.-When judgment is rendered on a
JOINT promissory note against one OF
two joint 0bligors, the other is thereby
absolutely DISCHARGED. unless the plaintiff.
IN some legal way. saves his right TO pursu'
the other also: if such judgment is after
wards set aside and vacated, this reyiv,
the liability of both obligors.
A. G. 16 tl4740l John Horton ct al. vs.
Oliver p. Hastings Hancock c. &. At
hrmed. Robinson, J.-Complaint to re-
open the final settlement of q guardian.
Held. there was no error In the conclusion
OF the court below upon the facts found.
and that the law was with the defendant.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room 3-Hon. Lewis C. Walker. Judge.
Anna Vice VS.. John Vice; divorce. De-
cree granted on grounds of drunkenness.
Neio Suits Filed.
Janet Clayton VS.. George w. CLAYTON:
divorce and custody of children. Habitual
Stephen Neal VS.. William w. Perrott; TO
revive judgme nt.
Lottie SOwders VS. David Sowders: di-
vorce and alimony. Demand. $4,000. Cruel
ty and habitual drunkenness.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon. Edgar A. Brown. Judge.
In the matter of the guardianship of Sam
uel b. Conaroe; unsound mind. Petition to
set aside report of guardian sustained.
Neio Snits Ftted
Nancy c. Chapman Va. William III. Chap
man: divorce Cruelty.
James H. Smith VS.. Hattie n. Opple ct al
for commission. On appeal. Demand. 500.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. Milard f. Cox. Judge
State vs.. Hampton West; provoke. On
trial by Jury.