The Indianapolis journal., 1892-04-08
The Court Record.
upREMR COURT OPINION


15SOS. Andrew T. Fulton et al vs. Luther
CuWminks ct al. Huntington G. G. At
frmed. Cottey. jim free gravel road pro-
ceedings upon appeal TO the Circuit Court
ft need not be shown that all the land
owners In the county whose lands are BEN
Gifted. have signed the petition without
regard TO the fact that they have not been
included in the report of the viewers to
give tie Board of Commissioners jurIsdic-
tion. 2. Ii was not error TO permit the re-
port of the viewers to the board with q
plot of the lands to be read to the jury. g.
When one whose lands were assessed was
neither petitioner. nor remonstrant. nor
party on appeal the fact that a juror was
related to his wife will not justify setting
aside the verdict
l51OS. Sarah A. Smith ct al. VS.. Leander
James ct al. Noble T.. G. Affirmed. Elliott
T.. J.-Where q special finding IS silent
upon the subject of fraud it Is TO be con-
strued as against the parties alleging fraud.
2. A motion for a new trial is proper where
there Is a special finding. but 1t is not q
proper mode of assailing the correctness Of
the conclusions of law. 8. A question
upon the competency of q witness may be-
reserved under the provisions of Section
$50 of the code. It is only necessary to
bring so much of the evidence as enables
the appellate tribunal TO clearly under
stand the nature and effect of the ruling of
the trial court and see it's preludlcial char
acter T. Anindependent and distinct rul-
ing upOn evidence may be presented as q
reserved question OF law uDueT tDc sbdtuto,
but questions and answers connected with
other evidence cannot be reserved by "a bill
which does not bring in all the evidence
upon the subject to which the questions
and answers relate.
l6S5& VIM. B. Hutchinson, Assignee VS..
First National Bank of Michigan City. La
Porte z. G.. Affirmed in part. Reversed
In part. Miller. J.-When moTtgsQed
premises are conveyed to "a trustee for the
benefit of creditors, he was a necessary
party IN suit TO fOroIose. 2. If an assignee
represents any creditor who. if the assign
ment had not been made. would have had
standing IN court TO question q convey
nnce by the debtor. snch assignee may, as
the representative of the creditor, assail
such conveyance. g. In the absence of ex-
press tIand, the mere failure of n mort
time flxed In the recording act will not as
against the general creditors of the mort
gsgeor. either prior OF subsequent, render
IL lnyald. 4. An arrangement for tile
Withholding of mortgage from record Is
not OF Itself sufficient to Justify court IN
holding. as matter of law. sue h mortgage
fraudulent and void as TO creditors either
existing cor subsequent but IL is n baa 20 of
frand To be- considered with all the other
facts and circumstances surrounding tho
transaction IN determining whether or not
there was in fact fraudulent intent.
1882. Hester Harrison ct al. vs. Mariah
Rishop et al Marion G. c. Reversed. Nc
Bride J.-When q person has been ad-
tudged OF unsound mind in proceedings Tor
the appointment of a guardian 10 manage
his estate, the adjudication does not neces-
sarily establish the existence of snch un-
bOundness as would incapacI Itate him from
making n valid will.
1861. Patrick Rush vs. Coal Bluff Min.
ing Company. Vigo Z. c. Affirmed. Olds-