The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-12-22
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court Opinions.

1928 Board, etc, vs. John c. OConner
Cass c. c. Affirmed. Hackney. il. Su-
perintendents chosen by board of county
commissioners to superintend the construc-
ton Of public works may bind the county
for work done and material furnished be-
yond the provisions of original written con-
tracts, and in the absence of any agree
ment as TO the cost of such additional labor
and material the recovery may be for the
reasonable value thereof. 2 An objection
below too indefinite and general to suggest
the point now urged will not be considered
8. When work is done in such case by the
contractor not only in substantial compli-
ance with the contract but as directed bv
superintendent chosen by authority of the
law they waive their right to pass upon
the Workmanship and materials but also
their right to condemn either unless there
is collision between the superintendent and
contractor 4. The instructions refused and
given are reviewed at length and no error
is found.
1882. Hubbard NJ. Smith VS.. Francis NJ
Harris Knox .. Z. Reversed. Daley, j.
III the order OF court appointing a receiver
was enormously made, yet it is effective
long the order remained in force. ..
When the court has assumed possession of
assets of partnership by appointment of a
receiver, the death of such receiver it
became the duty of the court to appoint
new receiver g. When the court assumed
jurisdiction of the cause and directed an
accounting 10 be had ii should continue TO
control and exercise jurisdiction over the
parties and subject matter until q final set
Element and decree were made and entered.
1882. John Poison VS.. State. Allen c. c.
Affirmed Coffey, J.-Because the verdict of
jury does not recite that defendant is
guilty Of etc, las charged in the affida-
Wit and information" il Will not be pre-
sumed the jury found him guilty of a crime
he was not charged with. 2 An instruction
that assault and battery with intent to
commit rape was included in the crime of
rape if the jury was satisfied from the evil
dence beyond reasonable doubt that he
guilty OF rape. they might under the
affidavit and Information find him guilty
of assault and battery with intent to COM
nit
1875. James L. Romack VS.. Jacob r.
Hobbs ct al. Upton c. C. Rehearing
granted.
Appellate Court Opinions.
7s5. Herman Pottlitzer ct al VS.. Freder-
lex Wesson ct al Allen :. @. Affirmed.
Davis, c. jim an executory contract for
the sale of personal property words de-
the property n do not mpoTt or Maqrsn ~
that survives acceptance. The purchaser
in such case has the right upon inspection
TO reject the goods if not of the particular
description ordered, but if he accepts the
property after such examination he cannot
complain of the defects disclosed by the ex-
animation. ? Where a check was sent by
a debtor to creditor for less than the
creditor acknowledged receipt of the check
with the statement that he had placed the
balance of the claim I'm the hands OF a coll
lection agency for attention. Held, No ac-
iSs9 ALONG L Jaqga vs. lanes
LotZ, i'm an action on money demand
on contract 1t must be shown that some
part of the debt IS due and unpaid
1925. state Samuel Gardner Put
nam c. g Affirmed. Gavin, J.-When is
sue has been Joined by the parties and the
cause submitted and determined by the
court there has been a trial in legal con-
temptation whether the court actually
hears any evidence or not.
superior Court.
Room flames n. Winters, Judge.
George EberhaIdt G. y Wurgler; in
juries. Dismissed.
Star Saving and Loan Association VS.. Al
bert y. Mendenhall IT al; foreclosure.
Dismissed and costs paid.
Hood. Bonbright & Co. vs. James a.
Shaw; account. Judgment for plaintiff for
1921 90.
Enoch II. Moore VS.. John Wocher Dis
missed.
Henry c. Barrow ct al vs. Il. d. Will