The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-01-07
Tho Court Record.
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.


Tho Court Record.
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
1884 Hiley s. Cook ct al vs. Joseph
Claybaugh. Howard c. c. Affirmed. 0lds,
J.-When married woman holding real
estate by former marriage procures a di-
vOrce from her husband and then conveyed
the land to third person. who was 10 OBJ
tain q loan on the same aud turn tho money
over to the husband. who was to assume
the payment of the note. and the parties
remarried, when the real estate was con-
veyed to her and the husband paid off the
note and tho wife borrowed money from
the plaintiff and secured the same by
mortgage. Held. That although the de-
cree for q divorce may be set aside, yet
while 1t stands In full force the wife had a
tarily or for a consideration and pass the
title to third person. and she would hold
the title by virtue of such reconveynnce,
and not by the former marriage.
1886. Hiley s. Cook ct al. VS.. Addison
F. Armstrong. Howard C. c.. Affirmed.
Odds. j. Affirmed on the authority of Cook
VS.. Clay baugh
l6345. Hiley 6. Cook et al. VS.. John o.
Henderson. Howard G. G.. Affirmed. Olds,
j. Affirmed on the authority of Cook VS..
1887 WIN. T. Mcconnell ct al. vs. Citi-
zens' State Bank. Gibson z. g. Rehezr-
i5s5a Eula lie Patterson VS.. George H.
dsred.
APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS.
la. Daniel p. Baldwin VS.. John Shill.
Pulaski c. C. Affirmed. New. 1.-THE
statutory memorandum. given and except
by the judge. 2. Judgment Will be given
on answers to interTogatories only in cases
where there is an irreconcllable conflict
between them and the general verdict
s6S. Frank =. Worley. Administrator. vs..
versed. Robinson. &. IA claim against
q decedents estate must be succinct and
definite. and contain all such facts as are
necessary to show that the decedent's estate
IS lawfully indebted to claimant. Ii the
claim is secured by lien IL shall be particu-
larry set forth, and q reference given TO
where the lien, if recorded. will be found.
Ii On affidavit in support of such claim. as
required by Section 3S5, Elliott's SUD-, isnot
filed. the claim is suject to demurrer.
go. James b. McFadden VS.. Conrad
Schneider. Shelby c. c. Reversed. Rein
hard. 1.-The proper practice Is TO move to
as a ruling upon it cannot affect the merits
It will not be considered an appeal. 2.
Where the value of the property in dispute
IS fixed by the verdict of the jury or find
ing Of the court. and Judgment is rem
dered for the amount of such value. and
the judgment Is paid. the title to the prop
erty becomes vested in the party against
whom the Judgment was rendered. for If
the owner elect to take Judgment on the
replevln bond and collects it be has thereby
abandoned his right to the property. and
the title passes as fully as if it had been
transferred by purchase.
217. Hannah III. Swift VS.. State ex rel.
Louis NJ. Devlin, prosecuting attorney.
Franklin c. &. Affirmed. Black. J.-Where
the owner of property lists it for taxation
and delivers the list to the assessor it is
not necessary in q complaint to recover
penalty for giving false list to own that
hnv ,Nf mir "A ~ of
sound mind.
Ss4. Frederick Busjahn VS.. VIM. E. Nc
Lean. Cashier. Cass &. G. Affirmed.
Crumpacker. J.-When O mistake has oc-
Cured in the terms of q note, and il is in
fact different from the purpose and ipten-
tlon OF the parties. and q change is made
therein In good faith by the holder for the
purpose of making the instrument conform
to the intention of the parties such alter
alton il not fraudulent and will not vitiate
the note. Under such circumstances the
holder is implicitly authorized to make the
correction, but il must clearly appear that
the mistake was mutual and extended to
all the parties. and the change was only
take and 20 make the instrument speak the
exact truth.
1922. Hugh l.. Kimberlin VS.. State ex
rel. VIM. 81. Tow. Lawrence c. c. Af-
firmed. Coffey, J.-Where one is law
fully In the possession of an Office
under q constitutional provision to the
effect that he shall hold until his
successor Is elected and qualified his right
to hold over continues until q qualified
successor has been elected by the same
electoral body or those to which such in
cumbent owes his election or which by law
is entitled to elect q successor. 2. Where
q person is in the possession of an Office
under constitutional or statutory pro-
vision like that found in our Constitution
and successor is duly elected. but dies
before he qualities, no vacancy occurs,
since one of the contingencies upon which
the incumbent's term of office is to expire
has not taken place; namely the Qualifca-
ton OF q successor.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room 2-Hon. James W. Harper, Judge.
Charles r. Brown VS.. Louisa M. Brown;
divorce. Tried by court. Decree granted
plaintiff.
Room 3-Hon Lewis @. Walker, Judge.
Elizabeth Monroe VS.. Jesse Powers;
breach of marriage contract Dismissed at
plaintiffs costs.
Ester n. Link VS.. John f. Link; divorce.
Dismissed at plaintiffs costs.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. Millard r. Cox. Judge.
State vs. Charles Reed; petit larceny.
Verdict of guilty and sentenced to the
penitentiary for two and half years.