The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-06-06
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court Opinions.

1881. Brown VS.. o. e. NJ. Railway Com
pany. Martin c.. G. Reversed. Howard.yJ.
The jury found no facts irreconcilable
with the general verdict and the court
erred in rendering judgment for appellee
on the answer to the interrogatories and
the cause is reversed with Instructions to
render judgment on the general verdict.
1878. Whitney ct al VS.. Marshall. Vfgo
S. c. Affirmed. McCaba, J.-When part of
a decree of a court is outside of the matter
submitted to it by the pleadings of the
parties, it is not res judicata and is not
conclusive or binding on them. 2. A wife
is entitled to her inchoate interest in the
lands of her husband, which We're fraudu-
lently conveyed to her but which were
subjected to the payment OF his debts. tsLs
1875. Boruff vs. Hudson. Lawrence
c. Affirmed. Hackney, IA promise TO
pay purchase money to a third person to
the credit of the grantor Is not a promise
to pay the debt of another within the
meaning OF the statute of frauds. 2. When
a party received full benefit of a contract
by the performance of the other party he
cannot interpose the statute OF frauds to
defeat the contract.
1851. Cree. Administrators. eft al. VS..
Sherry. Monroe c. c. Affirmed. Daley, J.
When land was conveyed by q father 10
his son in consideration of a note for $500
and support and maintenance in an action
by the father against the administrator
and heirs of the son to set aside the deed
it was not necessary TO aver a tender of
the note. When the agreement to support,
ETC.. was executed contemporaneously with
the deed the son took the land on a condi-
" CuDOCQuClC
17172. Cross VS.. State. Grant c. C.
Affirmed. Coffey, jim a prosecution for
rape II was not error to permit evidence
that the defendant took the prosecuting
witness to a house of prostitution kept by
himself.
Appellate Court Opinions.
1900. Barr, Administrator, VS.. c., St. l..
& p. Railroad Company. Henry c. c.
which the law attaches strong or conclusive
prescriptions the method by which the
question Of w~illfulness Of the defendant
wiilfuiness is a fact it is like any oTber
fact in the case. But in this case. an
action for damages for the death of the
decendent, willfulness should have been de-
termined by the jury. Ross, j., dissents.
Ills. Peterson VS.. Western Union Tele-
graph Company. Elkhart @. c.. Davis. ].
Where an agent of a telegraph received
a message for a place where il had no Of
flee the company is not liable for the
statutory penalty Or. S, 1894, Sec. SO, 11-12)
1i7s. Helm ct al. VS.. n. Y. c. & st. l..
Gavin, J.-Where the evidence is conflicting
or the facts established by it are of such
a character that different differences may
reasonably be drawn by different minds. it
is within the province Of the court or
jury trying the cause to determine what
facts are established and which inference
is the proper one.
1873. Voorhees, ct al. VS.. Becknell. Kos
ciusko c. c. Affirmed. Ross. VIII
80 -" - A1NO Az IlCACO-
sity of showing a complete compliance
with the terms of the original contract.
1876. L., N. A. & Co. Railway Company
VS.. Kendall. Washington c. c. Rehear-
ing denied.
1864. HoIlinger VS.. Reenie. vigo c. G.
Rehearing denied.
Superior Court.
Room flames NJ. Winters, Judge.
Albert r. Baker VS.. Supreme Sitting.
Order of Iron Hall; claims. On trial by
court.
Victor NJ. Backus VS.. d. f. stone ct al.
on note. Judgment for plaintiff for N,s33.49.
Room 2@J. w. Hlrper, Judge.
Susan L.. East VS.. Rachel A. Gould ct al. /:
suit TO quiet title. Tried by court. De-
Lorenz Schmidt, Trustee, VS.. Pauline
Wagner ct al; foreclosure of mortgage.
Tried by court Finding and Judgment for
plaintiff for S7s.3 and decree of FORE
Anderson Forging COMPANY VS.. Fernan-
DEE NJ. Simmonds ct al. Tried by court.
Finding and judgment for plaintiff for
James Renihan VS.. Bridget Conaors: suit
on account. Cause dismissed at PLAINTIFFS
costs.
Caroline 5. Cummings VS.. City of m
d~ianapolis; damages. Cause dismissed by
William Axum VS.. The Standard oil
Company; suit for wages. Cause dis
missed at PLAINTIFFS costs.
Foster & Bennett Lumber Company VS..
Percival "A. Salisbury ct al; suit on ac-
count. On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Edgar A. Brown, Judge.
Harry Bowser VS.. william II. Nartz ct
al; receivership. John w. Healing APP
pointed receiver.
Christine i. Morris VS.. Nathaniel N.
Morris: on account DISMISSED for want