The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-03-10
The Court Record.


1926 Charles IL. Branch VS.. Louisa
Foustet al Madison &. G.. Affirmed. Mo-
Bride, jim an action for the possession Of
land by one whose title is derived through
q sheritf's sale the validity of the sale may
he attacked by cross-complaint. 2. Mere
lnadequacy of price alone may be sufficient
to Justify setting the sale aside. TO have
this effect, however. the disparity between
the value of the property sold and the
price paid must be so great as to shock the
sense OF justice and right. IL coupled with
cumstances showing fraud. lrregularity or
great unfairness the courts will not bes-
tate lat least when the attack upon the sale
is directl to set it aside.
LISA James K. Stanley ct al. We. Lovinla
Holiday. Lake G. G. Affirmed. Odds, j.
lin q complaint to quiet title an averment
that plaintiff Is the owner by complete
equitable title and entitled to possession
of. ETC.. Is sufficient as against demurrer.
2. If an objection had been pointed out
when the evidence wes offered, if valid, it
might have been avoided, and Will be con-
sIdered waived.
1918. Nathan Mccoy VS.. William liable
ct al. BlackfOrd G. Z. Reversed. Elliott.
G. J.-Wh here there Is no bill of exceptions
containing motion to dismiss an appeal.
In gravel road proceedings, or exhibiting
the ruling thereon, no question theron Is
presented. 2. Where bill of exceptions
shows on Its face that 1t was presented to
the Judge in due time, the fact that 1t was
not filed until some time afterwards does
not impair its force. 8. The fact that the
record does not show that the stenOgrapher
was appointed or sworn does not take the
evidence ont of the record. 4. Where q
bill of exceptions upon a ruling denying q
new trial Ia taken for the purpose of get
ting the stenographer's report of the evil
dence. with it's incidents into the record,
the original bill may be certified up to this
court as part of the record. 5. Parties in
such case cannot, by an agreement in ad-
vance. GUST the Jurisdiction of the courts
and make conclusive the estimate of an
engineer or other person. The estimate Is
prima facie correct. and the burden is on
the defendants to show fraud or mistake.
which Is the only general question open to
controversy.
1888. Mary Sanders ct al. VS.. David E.
Wilkinson. Hamilton G. G. Dismissed.
1850. Benjamin +. Corn vs. Lydia Corn.
Marshall Z. Z. Motion to dismiss Overruled.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room lion Napoleon b. TAYLOR. Judge
Thomas Barretta VS.. Sarah Nolan ct al. |;
note and mortgage. Dismissed and costs
paid.
Cora b. Perkins VS.. the Adams Brick
Company; damages. On trial by jury.
Room 2-Hon. James w. Harper. Judge.
William j. Mccullough ct al. vs. Key
stone Land and Improvement Company;
tried by jury. Jury returned verdict for
plaintiff for Sl00
Sample Loftin vs. Charles j. Many ct al;
suit on note. On trial by jury.
Room 3-HOn. Lewis c. Walker. Judge.
Thomas n. Bryan ct. al. VS.. Charles G.
Watson; subscription. On trial by jury.
Nel7 suits Fited.
August J. Mueller rs. Citizens Street
Railway; damages. Demand. s. 900. Room 8.
Carrie hislinR Va. Jacob klsllng: divorce.
Abandonment. Room l.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon Edgar A Brown. Judge.
Charles w. GOrsuch, Guardian of Amos
Reilly. vs.. The Town of West IndIanapo-
lis; appeal from assessment for opening
street. Compounded and settled.
Benjamin Cannon rs. Town of West In
dianapolis appeal from assessment for
opening street. Compromised and settled.
n Himon Rlngoisky VS.. Western Union
VTelegraph Company; penalty. Dismissed
| by plaintiff.
Samantha C. Fredericks VS.. John w.
| Fredericks; divorce and alimoDy. On trial
| by court.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. Willard Z. Cox. Judge.
State VS.. Henry Murphy. petit larceny.
| plea of guilty; State VS.. George Presley.
| petit larceny. plea Of not guilty; State