The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-03-30
The Court Record.
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.


162O3. Catharine Noe VS.. Anna NJ. Roll ct al
Franklin c. Z. Affirmed. Hackney, 1.-The facts
stated in the complaint do not create an implied
trust and no fraud is alleged SO that there is NO
16047. David p Barrier ct al. vs. Samuel o.
Bayless White @. c. Affirmed. Coffey, @. j.
There is no objection to the owner OF the subject
matter OF the suit appearing and taking such
steps as would protect it's interests. ,. To
authorize reversal because OF abuse OF dis
erection to granting a new trial it should be made
TO appear ta) that there was plain abuse of
judicial discretion tbl that fragrant injustice had
been done the complaining party, tc) a very
giaring case for relief. 3. After motions to make
finding more specific, to strike out parts of it and
Tor a venlre de novo exceptions to conclusions Of
law are too late.
1873. L., n. A. &C. Railway Com oany ct al
vs. winfield s: SmoOt. Newton c. O. Affirmed
Odds, ia joint assignment OF error in ruling
on the separate demurrers Of each appellant to
the complaint end the separate motion for a new
trial OF each present no question.
Keonedv s So a oh Uarr,ges ct 81, VS. sa%uei d
J.-No brief is filed for appellant.
APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS.
s66. Supreme Lodge, A. o. U. W., ct al vs.
MargrCtte Hutchinson. Vanderburg c. c.
Affirmed. Gavin, J.-Statements made by an
assured in his application for insurance in q
ranties unless they are incorporated in the policy
or are In some appropriate method referred to
In that instrument. A provision In the consti-
tuition that the application shall be a warranty
or the truth OF all the facts therein stated will
not make such statements warranties. 2. The
applicants failure to disclose to the lodge his
past misdeeds was not fraud that would avoid
the policy after accepting him as member and
collecting dues. etc. 3. Although the beneficiary
was not the lawful wife Of the assured she be-
lieved herself to be such. ana the illegality of
the Relationship under such circumstances will
not defeat her right.
S12. C., II. d |. Railroad Company ct al va
Mary Claire. Marion 8. c. Affirmed. Rein
hard. @. J.-When railroad company Ia ordered
10 raise its track to the level Of o grade at q
street crossing IL was bound to restore the side
walk to its former condition II able to do so by
reasonable care, and falling to do IL was liable
to s any one M;1 injured T. passing over it.
Marion s. c. Rehearing granted.
SUPERIOR COURT.
l-Napo 3. Taylor. Judge
The Adams Brick Company VS.. Kate Z. Petit
ct al; TO quiet title. Finding and decree for
Gertrude Shutter VS.. Board of Children,s
Guardians; continued to Wednesday, April 5.
Luther Drum VS.. lndanap polls Stove Company;
for wages. Trial by court. Judgment for de-
PENDANT
Room 81. ". Harper Judge
VIM. SPOTS vs. Griffith NJ. Girard ct al; fore
closure of mortgage. Tried by court. Judgment
for plaintiff for $2,436.
Tried by court Decree and custody of child
granted plaintiff.
Herman Ackelow VS.. Arthur R. Peck ct al; at
tachment Dismissed by plaintiff at plaintiffs
Joseph A. Dunlap vs. Ebert H. shirk; fore.
closure Of mechanics lien. Dismissed and costs
paid.
Buffalo Fish Company vs.. John soheid on &C.
count Dismissed by plaintiff; costs paid.
George Hartz VS.. Virginia Hartz; habeas
corpus Judgment for plaintiff for possession of
child, LIE Roy Francis Hartz.
Room 3-Piny W. Bartholomew, Judge
Willis p. Maine VS.. Earl NJ. Oge ct AL; me-
chanc's lien. Dismissed.
George Lowe VS.. Citizens Street-railroad Com
pany; damages, $4,000. On trial by jury.
Ncp Suits Filed.
Charles Girton ct al. VS.. Angelina McOuatt;
account and to establish lien. Room 3.
Ella Noble Vs. willard g. Noble; divorce.
Room 3.
Emil Dieckerhoff ct al. va. William Pfafiin ct
al; on account. Room g.
william T. Miers VS.. Laura A. Shipley ct al; to
set aside deed. Room 2.
Mary j. Pace va. Albert Bonge damages. De-
mand, s., 000 Room i.
James Mann c., c., G. & st. L. Rallw ay
Company; damages. Demand, &c. 900. Room /.
Clara Hogan vs.. the United States Live Stock
Insurance Company; on policy. Room 2.
Peter Fuchs VS.. William Schleicher ct al; dam
ages. Demand, $4,000. Room 3.
CIRCUIT COURT.
NeD SNtfs Filed.
Edward A. Eldrecge ct al. VS.. George w. Gal
vim ct al; on account.
The Indianapolis Bill Posting Company va. j.
A. Bailey ct al. damages Demand, So, 900.