The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-05-13

there was no REDEEM ption. but the Judgment
debtor 10 not estoppsd from awaiting him.
self of such rights as tho statute coniers
npon him. One holding subsequent
deed absolute on its face. hut which is in
fact mortgage may treat the same as a
mortgage and he may redeem from the
State in that character. and the statute
gives him the right to estsollsh and en-
demptIon from the sherlh sale. Miller,
j. took 10 part.
1888. Edward A. Enos VS.. State ex rel.
Peter Goder. Fsyette e. c. Affirmed.
Coffey. il. Statutes regulating the
mere mode of conducting an election are
directory, and a departure from such mode
will not generally defeat the successful
candidate. 2 When an inspector of cleo
ton fails and refuses tn file the certificate
required by Section 5000. X. s., mandate is
l5sO4. Turressa b. Taylor VS.. Christopher
Hearn. Jay c. C. Affirmed. Miller. j.
ownership on his part 2 1t is not impor-
tant that O complaint should state that
note is due when 1t Is hled as an exhibit.
3. Where married woman represents that
loan secured by mortgage on her land is
for her own use she will be est0pped as
against one who. In good faith. has con-
tracted with her in reliance upon her state
ments from asserting that she Is a surety.
and not the principal In the transaction.
1902 Henry Pickett vs. l.. ST. l.. IL *.
c. Railroad Company. Tipton. c. G.. At
firmed. Mcbride J.-Where an action Is
brought to. recover damages for trespass
Sec. z92, r. s.. 1881. requiring 1t TO DO
brought within six years. applies.
1858 John Hartlepp ct al VS.. Whiteley,
Fassler IL Kelley ct al. Tippecanoe c. G.
Opini ion modified. Olds. 1.-The personal
judgment in favor of James McCaber is af-
firmed and the Judgment setting aside the
conveyance is reversed and new trial or
dered.
1875. L.. E. 81 st. L.. r. r. Co. VS..
Lota Pritchard. Crawford G. G. AZ
firmed. Odds, 1.-THE fact that the pla int
iff was an infant and was driving a b orse
does not of Itself establi contributOry neg
ligence in o suit for I'M uries q gainst rail-
road. 2 1t was the duty OF the railroad.
upon building across a high way. to restore
the highway as soon as possible TO Its pre-
vious condition. and failing to do SO it
was liable for damages sustained for iDju-
RES received by reason of the unsafe con.
dition in which it was left, If the plaintiff
used care commensurate with the damage.
1892 Phoenix Insurance Company VS..
Solomon Perry. Madison q. c. Rehearing
denied.
1871. John Ross VS.. State ex rel. White
G. G. Rehearing denied.
1854. John Hollingsvort ct al. vs.. John
B. Stumph. Montgomery G. G. Rehearing
denied.
APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS.
$40 Indiana eto.. Insurance Company
VS.. Edward X. Strattou. Henry &. c. Re-
suit on O promssory note is not bound to
set up a crOss-actIon, even a cOunter-claim,
but may bring separate suit upon the
same afterwards. If he takes this course.
however, he Is required by statute to pay
the costs of such subsequent proceeding.
q No Judgment will be a bar to a subse-
quent action unless the matter sued upon
might have been litIgated In the former
action. But the question as TO what might
properly have been litigated in the former
action must be determined by the pleadiDgs
therein and cannot be proved by parol EVIL
denee.
6l9. Joshua K. Sheer vs. Greencastle
and Charlottesville Grsvsl-road Company.
MONTGOMERY e. &. Affirmed. Black. IA
turnpike company operating under the
general law relating TO such corporations
need not construct or maintain its road OF a
greater width than eight and one half feet,
and the road need NOT be of uniform width
throughout it's course. The fact that
bridge was wider than the approach would
not render the approach defective. and one
injured by driving out of the travelled way,
and not by any defect OF the travelled high
way nor the ihsuffieient width of the high
way, cannot recover.
4i2. Oakland City. etc.. Society VS.. John
l.. Bingham. Gibson {. &. Reversed.
Crumpacker. J.-Where a gate-keeper was
authorized to preserve order and eject
those who were not rightfully upon fair
ground and the duty of Judging when one
was disorderly or was wrongfully upon the
ground was committed to HIM. if in she ex-
ercise of such Judgment he wrongfuliy
elected plaintiff from the ground, or if
fancied violation of some rule OF demeanor
so excited the gate-keeper's anger that he
inflicted Malicious injury in attempting
to enforce its observance. the society should
be held for the result. 2. A master is re-
spOnsible only for misconduct In the line
of employment even when he negligently
employs an incompetent servant 3. If o
party IS sued for an assault he may, under
the general denial. show that the assault
complained of was committed by another
party, and thus exclude the idea of his
guilt.
400. Enos B. Kulp OF al. VS.. Livy Cham
berlin. Assignee. ct al Elkhart &. G.
Affirmed. Robinson. J.-Where an as
signor made an assignment before no.
such assignor. under the mechanics
| lien law, and such notice was served after
the assignee had taken possession under
the assignment. the person serving auch
notice did not acquire a superior lien on
| such debt over other creditors.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Rccmi-Hon Napoleon B. TAYLOR Judge
Aaron n. Jaynes. Administrator. VS.. Citi-
Zens' Street-railway Company; damages.
| Jury returned verdict for defendant.
Room 2-Hon. J. w. Harper. Judge.
Nathan Dalton ct al. VS.. Eli Hiatt ct al;
| mechanics lien. On trial by court.
James r. Munro vs. Sarah j. sutton ct
al: note. Dismissed by plaintiff. Costs
| paid.
John NJ Bonnie. Administrator. vs.. Jen-
| ME Lewark ct al. Cause dismissed By
plaintiff. Costs paid.
| Room Sion. Lewis c. Walker. Judge.
Henry W. Murphy vs.. Wilson 8. Swenge
ct al; to revive Judgment. Dismissed and
| costs paid.
| Daniel b. Hosbrook ct nj. VS.. Joshua S.
| Ridgway ct al; to quiet title. Finding for
| and quoting title in plaintiff.
| Christian Off VS.. Wallace Donnan; note
| Judgment for sl23.30
| Fletcher place Church VS.. the Consnm-
ers' Gas Trust Company; mandate. On trial
| by court
| Nc,c Sutfs Filed.
John j. Baldus VS.. City of Indianapolis
| and Citizens Street-railroad Company;
| damages Demand s, 900. No. 2.
William Hindie VS.. John S. Flack; Oh
| note. Demand $3.50. No. !.
| CIRCUIT COURT.
| Hon. Edgar A. Brown. Judge.
| Preston Litton vs. Paul Brown; on chat
tel mortgage. On trial by Jury.
| Netc Suii Filed.
Lorena Thompson VS.. Charles Thompson;
| divorce. Abandonment.