The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-09
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court Opinions.

1854 Samuel c. Moore VS.. Lulu p. Thorn
as. Howard c. c. Affirmed. Coffey, j.
Where wife purchases an interest in
lands and pays a consideration therefor. but
by mistake the husbands name is inserted
in the deed as grantee instead of the wifes,
and she has no knowledge of the mistake, a
judgment subsequently rendered against her
husband is not lien on such lands, and an
action to quiet title thereto would lie on the
part of subsequent grantee. A Judgment
is only a lien upon the interest of the Judg
ment debtor in land, and such lien is SUBJ
ject to all existing equities in favor of third
parties; In the present case the Judgment
never became lien on the land conveyed
for the reason that the judgment defendant
never had an interest in it to which such
lien could attach.
1876 City of Delphi ct al VS. Nathaniel
w. Bowen, Administrator. Carroll c. c..
Reversed. Howard, c. J.-Sections GIG and
$3.50, r. s., 1881, impose upon the clerk OF a
city as the city officer corresponding 10 the
county auditor county officer, the duty
of assessing omitted property and giving
notice TO the owner required to be given
in such case by the county auditor. Under
Section Sl6O, r. s., 1881, the proper city Off
GERS have access to the books in the county
auditors office for the purpose of TRANSCRIPT
ing therefrom a list of the property as
sessed. These three sections give the city
clerk the power to make assessment of
omitted property after the. same has been
placed upon and added to the tax duplicate
of the county. The remaining questions are
decided in the case Of Reynolds, Auditor, ct
al vs.. Bowen, Administrator, decided at
1851. Schmidt ct al. VS.. Draper. Vigo c..
c. Affirmed. Daley, IA party cannot
by encroaching upon an alley for more
than twenty years gain any rights by such
adverse possession to the property thus en-
croached upon. The statute of limitations
does not run as to the occupancy of part
of a public street or alley of a city. Nor
does such encrOachment affect the rights
of the abutting owners on the other side of
the alley to occupy the true line.
1928. Statet of Indiana VS.. c., c., c.. &
st. l.. Ry. Co. Decatur c. c. Affirmed.
McCabe, ii. Sections 51SS and $3.50, r.. s.,
1884, acts 1891, p. 20, making ii a penal Of
Tense for railroad companies operating lines
through cities and towns of two hundred
and nifty population or more not to provide
and maintain suitable waiting rooms, etc,
for the convenience of the travelling pub
lie, ard for not keeping such rooms open
for period of not less than one hour next
preceding the arrival of passenger trains,
must be strictly construed, as they are
highly penal in their nature. To constitute
the offense of failure to keep open waiting
rooms 1t is necessary to aver that the COM
pany had provided and maintained such
waiting rooms, and an affidavit or infor-
nation not making such averm.nt may be
quashed. 2. Cor stitutional questions will
not be considered unless their considera-
ton is absolutely essential to the final end
Of the case in which they are supposed to
1856. James NJ. Bell ct al. VS. William
p. Maish. Treasurer, ct al. Clinton c. c.
Appellants petition for reharing.
Appellate Court Opinions.
1889 Joseph Burchart VS. Henry Eel.
Warrick c. c. Affirmed. Davis, c. j.
l. Where exceptions to instructions are re-
served in the following language ITO the
giving of instructions Nos. /, 2 and the
defendant at the time excepted" the ex-
ception can be maintained only by showing
that all of said instructions are erroneous.
2. Instructions not signed by the party
asking them, or by his attorney, as re-
quired by the statute, may be refused with
fusing instructions it must be shown that
the instructions refused were not covered
by other instructions given. 4. Where
there is evidence TO support q verdict the
verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.
1866. John Crawford, Trustee, VS.. Joseph
Hedrick ct al Warren c. G. Reversed.
Gavin, Judgment reversed on authority
of Crawford VS.. Hedrick No. 1867 Ind.
App, 80 n. Il. Rep.
No. 1l56. II. II. & I. Railway Company VS..
William Jarvis. Parke c. C. Reversed.
Lott, J.--1.--When the value of certain rails
destroyed by fire caught from railway
locomotive is in question it is error for q
court to refuse to admit evidence as to
their value from a party having knowledge
of the country and timber growth and the
value of rails in that locality. 1t is not nee
the particular rails the value of which was
in question 2. When the amount of re-
coVery is a mere matter Of calculation and
the evidence furnishes the basis an appel
late court may make the calculation and
order a remititur; but if the evidence is
uncertain or conflicting to the basis OF
recovery. or if the recovery of the cha T
acter which is left largely to the discretion
of the jury, a new trial will be ordered.
1908. Richard Hatfield VS.. State of In
diana Ohio G. @. On motion of appellant
aDpeal dismissed