The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-10

Appellate Court Decision on the Note
Cnse-An Insertion.

ASc@A
The promissory note case of Kingan &
Co. against William F. Sflvers and James
Silvers. of Lebanon, Ind. was decided by
the Appellate Court, yesterday, in favor of
the plaintiffs. who were also the appellants.
Kingan & Co. sued the Silvers on a ninety
day note for $3SS. OS, executed Sept. %, 1888,
at Lebanon, and their defense was that w.
H.. Nichols, a travelling salesman for Kin
gan, who had procured the note from them,
had altered it so as 10 read rs per cent
interest from date instead Of after ma
turity," as appeared in the original note
signed by them This change was made
without the knowledge of either party to the
suit, and Kingan & Co. claim il should not
affect the case, as all they asked was the
payment of the original note. They lost
the case. however, in the Marion Circuit
Court, where defendants demurrer was
sustained. but that decision was yesterday
reversed by the Appellate Court in an opin-
ion by Judge Lott. The opinion holds that
the change made in the note was not only
a material one, but one that could have
been made only for a fraudulent purpose
that OF increasing the obligations of the
holders.
However, the court decides that the act
dence. be construed as the act
of his employers, the plaintiffs, who are
known a a1 I hane neont it. apP H I thd IT b nof
such knowledge they would, according to
law. lose the entire debt, and the defendants
rect injury was done the Defendants by the
alteration Of the note in question, and the
public policy was violated. The doctrine
Of public policy, the court says, should be
invoked to prevent, not TO perpetrate: a
fraud. The courts conclusion is that When
Nichols altered the note he stood simply
in the relation to it Of a stranger, and his
was reversed at the S4lvers' costs and the
Marion Circuit Court instructed to overrule
their demurrers to the complaint
Supreme Court Opinions.
171O2. Walker ct al. VS.. jameson. Marion
c.. G.. Affirmed. Daley, j. McCabe. j.,
dissenting;Eon July r. 1893, the city of
clothed James H. Woodland with the ex-
elusive right and obligation TO remove gar
said city and to transport the same through
the streets TO a crematory. The contract
was assigned to appellee The general ordi-
TO effectuate the contract The ordinance
is authorized by Section . OF the charter,
providing that the Common Council shall
have power TO enact ordinances To prevent
the deposit of any unwholesome substances,
either on private or public property, compel
its removal 70 designated points. and to
require slcps, garbage, ashes. waste or
other material to be removed TO designated
points. or 10 require the occupants of prem
- y
moval. Held. that the contract and ordi-
nance are both within the police power,
which Is as broad as the power of taxa
ton, and, being simply a sanitary regula-
ton, they cannot be considered as in the
nature OF conf1scation or an attempt to
create a monopoly.
1879. Jones. Treasurer, ct al. VS.. Rush
vile National Bank. Rush G. c. Reversed.
Coffey. Ut was not the intention of the
General Assembly to confer on the State
Board OF Tax Commissioners original juris-
diction over national bank property. 2.
Wher two or more plaintiffs unite in
In the complaint do not show a Joint cause
of action in them. a demurrer will lie upon
the ground that such complaint doss not
state facts sufficient TO constitute a cause
OF action.
c.. Affirmed. Howard, c. J.-It is only par
ties to actions who can make motions
therein.
c. G.. Reversed. Hackney, 1.-THE judg-
ment is reversed because the courts conclu-
sion upon the finding as TO amount due APP
pellant is too small.
Appellate Court Opinions.
loss. Kingan & Co, Limited, VS.. Silver ct
al. Marion G.. G. Reversed. Lott, j.
Where a travelling salesman. without gem
Elements. is instructed by his employer TO
procure a note from a debtor. and such
salesman after procuring such note alters
the same so as 10 make IL read interest
parties. he stood in the relation OF a
stranger. and his act was mere spoliation.
Davis and Gavin, justices. dissent.
1902. Nixon VS.. Nichols ct al. Fountain
c. c. Affirmed. Davis, Aft proceed
ings have ceased TO be In fierl and after
the close of the term at which the record
was entered, amendments To judgments
can only be made where there is some