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

1857. Caroline NJ. Reeves ct al. vs. VIM.
+. Groltendeck ct al. Randolph &. e..
Affirmed. Elliott, &. J.-Section 3l65, II. S.,
1881. forbids prOperty-Owners from making
any question in proceedings to enforce
street assessments that reach back Of the
contract, and tie absence from the tran
script of facts or proceedings affecting
matters antecedent 10 the making of
rights of the parties. 2. Afidavits for
preceDt made by one person are as effective
as if made by two persons. Where the
affidavit says in terms that the estimate
has been duly made and that the work has
been done according TO the contract this
is q sufficient statement as to.the estimate;
and when it shows the amount Of the
estimate the mum Der of llneal feet of
frontage, the cost, per hneal foot and that
mo dollars" has been paid and also shows
that Ia specific sum which is definitely
designated remains unpaid, there is q
sufficient statement of the amount due and
unpaid. 8. The engineer is the proper
officer to make the estimates and it is his
duty under the law to make 1t. 4. Error
in giving the names of the contractors in
the precept will not defeat the rights of the
contractors to compensation for their
y w0s : = Nv The the act act of aS1i, + 1s. s. iss SldS' was
164S5. State ex rel Dayton Gravel-road
Company ct al. VS.. Board, etc. Tippecanoe
G. C.. Affirmed. Coffey. when q board
of commissioners being q court inv ested by
law Wltup OW Oh uiu thO HuCootOn
of purchasing q toll-road, itcannot be COM
PEELED by mandamus to render O Judgment
different from that reached by it. 80.
1G342. David NJ. Dillon ct al. VS.. John Z.
johnson ct al. Miami G.. c. Reversed.
Olds, J.-Creditors OF a husband may reach
the surplus, above the valid interest of the
wife, which the husband put in her name
to defraud them, and she would hold IL In
trust for them. but she is entitled to be
protected in so far as she has a valid inter
est. .
1866. Jonathan johnson. Receiver. vs..
Lee McClary ct al. Hamilton &. G.. Re-
versed. Mcbride. J.-Partners may waive
the right to have firm assets applied to the
payment of firm debts. and may join in
to secure bOna fide debts of the individual
partners for which the firm is nowise liable.
The transaction to secure bona fide debts
cannot be successfully attacked, either
by creditors OF by a receiver
of an insolvent partnership. Such
use of firm property may no doubt be
valid. although not joined in by oil the
partners. provided it is done with the
knowledge and consent, or is ratified or ap-
proved by them. Property SO transferred
after the insolvency of the firm. the burden
was on the holder to show afirmatlvely
either participation in OF assent to the
transfer by all the partners. This was es-
sential to a successful defense.
APPELLATE OPINIONS.
219. John Brand VS.. State ex rel. George
P. Haywood, Prosecuting Attorney. Tippe-
canoe G. C.-Reversed. Reversed on the
authority Of Brand VS.. State .ex rel, last
term.
% First National Bank We. Indiana Ma
rional Bank. Carroll c.. G. Motion to
modify Judgment overruled.
253. l., ID. ~ w. Railway Company vs.