The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-12-21
The Court Record.
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.


1896. Addison X. Sills ct al. We. Frank III.
Lawson ct al. White c. G. Reversed. Miller. c.
Where one purchased land in good faith
and paid the purchase money and acquired a
sherif's deed aud had Ii recorded before notice
of such deed he will be protected against it. &
G.. Reversed. COrey, J.-lndictment charging
appellee with perjury in an affidavit swearing in
a voter. The Indictment alleges that the person
signed the jurol without attaching his official
title. and that Is sufficient. IL the authority OF
the officer to administer the oath fully appears
by the facts In the indictment it is sufficient.
without n formal allegation 10 that effect. II
was not necessary 10 give the name of the per-
son who CHALLENGED the voter: nor that the atii-
dayit was signed In the presence of the election
board.
l606s. Sarah A. Bradshaw VS.. Isaac N. Van
Winkie. Perry c. c. Reversed. Olds, Eff
teen years statute of limitations applies 10 suits
TO quiet title. 2. A Judgment will be reversed
for an error in overriding a demurrer To n bad
answer. unless ii afiirmatiyely appears that such
ruling Is harmless
16557; Augustus H, Smith VS. George p.
Wood. Marion 8. C. Affirmed. Mcbride, IA
writing: indianapolis. Ang. Is, 1891. We
stored in our brick warehouse, viz: 5000 thir-
ty-five hundred tierces and G., O00) two thousand
in Patrick Manley's cellar. balance to be 37la
cents per tierce. amount subject TO Wilson Nor
rows demand as far rs tierces are delivered
during the packlng season of lS9l-92. Above
tierces are fully insured by us. Wood & Smith
is not compile on its face. and parol evidence
prior or contemporaneous Herewith Is admissi-
bic.
1904 James NJ. Branson VS.. Henry Studio
baker-Randolph, c. c. Affirmed. Elliott, D.
The statute creating the Appellate Court limiting
the jurisdiction of that tribunal so rs to prevent
it from equaling in authority the Supreme
Court Is valid. The statute regulating practice
in the courts BY pro viding for the transfer OF
cases from one docket To another, Is not invalid
Us special legislation. 3. The provisions OF the
statute creating the Appellate Court authorizing
the transfer TO that court OF cases appealed TO
this court prior 10 its enactment are valid. 4. The
provision empowering the Appellate Court TO
transfer cases to the docket OF this court when
ascertained TO be within its jurisdiction is valid.
8. When the complaint puts the title TO real es-
tate In issue by specific statements of title and
the special verdict shows upon It's face that the
finding rest on such averments the jurisdiction
ia in the Supreme Court. g. A special verdict ia
not bad as against a motion for a Y enire de noyo
although it may not embrace all the issues. A
motion lies only whore the verdict upon its face
appears To be defective In form.
z. A fec simple may he held in an easement.
and when a conveyance is OF an estate in rop-
erty rs a mlll-race IL conveys everything essen
tial 10 the enjoyment or the estate or property
granted, although there may be no specific
designation or description of the particular
quantity OF land occupied by the mill or race.
16oa3- Philip BuIlian VS.. Stiles Carter. Xix
hart c. G. Dismissed.
1899. Owen Mccain vs.. Hiram Jean.
Greene G. G. Molten to dismiss overruled.