The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-04-25
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

SUPREME OPINIONS.
1887. John Ralston ct al. VS.. Abram 1.
Beali ct al. Miami C.. c. Affirmed. Nc
Bride, jim a free gravel-rOGd proceeding,
until the Board of Commissioners makes O
finding. names may be Withdrawn from the
petition. but after the finding has been
made the right to withdraw names no
longer exists; but when the board post
poned further action for more than six
years the petitioners acQuiesced In such
postponement and ignored the entire pro-
ceeding, and the board was Justified i'll ig-
noring the finding and in again taking up
the matter de novo on the petition and re-
port OF the viewers aud allowing names to
be withdrawn.
1e2O6 Frank S. Robey, Trustee, VS.. George
Il. Smith ct al. Steuben G. =. Reversed.
Miller, J.-SectiOn 29S8, prohibiting the ap-
poIntment of nonresident trustees. Is M
constitutional. conflicting with those pro-
visions of the Constitution OF the United
States which guarantee to the citizens of
each State and of the United States all the
privileges and immunities of citizens of
the several States.
l5OS9. Inman II. Fowler, va. Samuel l..
Wallace. Greene C. T.. Reversed. Elliott.
G.. Jan instruction that the defendant
in q Islander suit must prove his answer OF
justification beyond n reasonable doubt Is
good. ,. Instructions that money may be
purloined or secreted by a bank cashier
and there be no crime, unless the intent to
eventually deprive the owner of the mon
ey exists IN the nina of the purloiner. are
erroneous, as embeZzlement may. exist
without any intention existing In the
mind of O bank cashier At the time he
takes, obtains or uses money of his en-
ployer to deprive the employer of it with
1884. John Haxton ct al. vs.. Rebecca
McClaren. Owen T.. c. Affirmed in part.
reversed in part. Coffey. J.-Where a trust
is completely executed, tho trustee having
accepted it. the court will enforce 1t &C.
1n~A,~- 60 ka tArruo ~ fho onraaO nAnf mazda
at the time the trnst was created. 2
When q trustee repudiated O trust and
transferred the trust property to another
person. q beneficiary may follow the fund
into the hands of such person, but she was
not bound to and could sue the trustee per-
sonally. 8. An instruction will not be re-
versed on account of an erroneous %instruo-
tion which does not inlurionsly Affect the
rights of the D arty complaining.
1859. George w. Ewing vs.. Mary p.
Lutz ct al. Wabash G.. G.. Reversed. Eli
lott. c. 1.-The deed involved In this case
was Examined and construed In Ewing VS..
Jones. % n. Z. R.. 1867; Ewing va. Lemcke.
% n. L. r.. 1861: Ewing VS.. Forsan and Ew-
ing Va. Carson, Id. and under those cases
the complaint 10 sufficient.
1883. George w. Ewing VS.. Jacob Cones
ct al. Wabash c; c. Reversed on the au-
1854. George W. Ewing VS.. Oscar Wade
ct al. Wabash c. c. Reversed on the au-
'r 1855. Gs Sai ". Ewing VS.. George F.
Carr ct oil. Wabash c. c.. Reversed on
authority of No. 1852.
1850. George W.. Ewing vs. Mary A.
Boggs ct al. Wabash c. e.. Reversed on
the authority of No. 1852.
1857. George W. Ewing vs.. Caroline
Parke ct al. Wabash C. c. Reversed on
the authority of No. 1882.
1858. George W.. Ewing VS.. Sarah Z.
versed on the authority of No. 1852.
1859. George w. Ewing VS.. Emma b.
Lumoree. Wabash c. C.. Reversed on the
authority of No. 1882.
Fri COURT.
Room -Hon Napoleon B. TAYLOR. Judxa
Union Type Foundry VS.. s. w. Rose ct
Pettis Dry goods Company VS.. Dwight
d. Gillett; Smock, j. P. Finding for
plaintiff.
Room 2-Hon. J. W. Harper. Judge.
Nathan F. Dalton ct al. VS.. Mary Huff
man ct al; mechanics lien. Judgment VS..
plaintiff on demurrer. Plaintiff appeals to
general term.
Xennie Carroll VS.. Price Carroll; divorce.
Tried by court. and custody of child
granted plaintiff. Judgment VS.. defendant
| for $500 alimOny and costs.
Elizabeth Schlatzhaure VS.. George w.
Bennett. Cause dismissed and costs paid.
Neo S,sts Filed.
New Massachusetts, avenue Saving and
| Loan Association VS.. William G. Faust ct
AL: foreclosure of mortgage. Demand,
John W. Walter VS.. Mary s. Walter; for
divorce. Failure to perform marriage vows.
No. 1.
Violet Langsdnle ct al. va. George H..
Langsdale ct al; complaint for partition.
Circuit.
Maud Harding VS.. City of Indianapolis
and Charles W.. Oaks; complaint to quiet
title. No. 3.
Martha A. Parmalee VS.. Wm. Fl. Cooper
and Sarah A.. Cooper; complaint for injunc-
ton. No. 3.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon. Edgar A.. Brown. Judge.
Malcolm A. Mcdonald ct al. VS.. Josephine
+. Mcdonald ct al. Motion to vacata order
of court requiring plaintiffs to answer in
terrogstories p~ropounded by defendants
sustained.
p, c., C. & st. l.. Railway Company VS..
Geo. w. Bowman ct al. Motion of defend
ants to dissolve injunction and dismiss
cause overruled.
James Austin VS.. Premier Steel Company:
damages. Motion for new trial by defend
perior Court. One thousand dollars dam
ages.
Premier Steel Company VS.. John w. Ray.
Trustee; for release of mortgage. Dismissed
by plaintiff.
Kate 2. Moore VS.. Joseph G. Moore; di-
vorce: Decree granted plaintiff:
Emily Marshall VS.. Hiram p. Marshall;
divorce. Decree granted plaintiff.
Benjamin 5. Atkinson va. White Sewing
machine Company; contract and account.
On trial by jury.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. Willard F. Cox. Judge.
State VS.. John NewIin; grand larceny.
Evidence heard as TO circumstances Judg-
ment suspended.