The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-17
THE COURT RECORD
Supreme Court.

17lo1. Thomas VS.. Hoosier Stone Com
Pany. Orange c. c. Affirmed. McCabe, c.
for employment, he implicitly agrees to run
all the ordinary and usual risks of danger
to himself incident to and connected with
the service in which he agrees to engage;
except when the master orders him to per-
form a service outside of the scope of his
employment. 2. A demurrer to the evidence
admits all facts of which there is any evil
dence and all conclusions which can be
fairly and logically drawn from such facts.
3. In order to withstand a demurrer to the
evidence the party must prove all the spe-
cific allegations of his complaint.
1eaSS. City of indianapolis VS.. Consumers
Gas Trust Company. Marion c. c.. Affirmed.
Jordan, i'll. The Constitution forbids the
impairment of the obligation of a con-
tract" without the consent of all parties
concerned. 2. The exclusive power to regu-
late and control the use of streets is vested
IN the city, but the use, however, is not re-
tends to the laying of gas and water pipes
and to the promotion of the public health
and convenience.
TIPS. Shepherd VS.. Cohen. Park C. C.
Affirmed. Hackney, il. Evidence errone-
ousiy admitted may be withdrawn by the
court and the court will not presume that
such withdrawal will prejudice the minds
Of the jury. 2. A purchaser has no right to
rely upon the representations of the vendor
or seller of the property as to it's value or
quality where he has a reasonable oppor-
tunity of examining the property and find
1541S. Rand VS.. Wright. Marion S. C. Re
versed. Howard il. When a new COM
pany is formed from an old one. assuming
all the rights and liabilities of the old one
and on the appointment of a receiver all
those rights are transferred to the receiver.
that the death of one of their number shall
not terminate the partnership or necessi-
ta 17t7s : w Miebigga up q Gen 5h 7 o Rsi + Com
pany VS.. Lightner Trust. Lake c.. c.. Appeal
dismissed.
Appellate Court.
las. Spaulding VS.. Sones. Elkhart C. C.
Affirmed. Lott, 1.-THE failure or refusal of
a MORTGAGE to release u mortgage. after
the same has been paid, renders him liable
as provided by statute.
1874. Lowe VS.. Guard. Dearborn c.. c.
Reversed. Ross, c. J.-Where a person in
it in an unsafe condition, where, by reason
OF such negllgence, another,s stock are in
jured in such fence. he must answer in
damages for the injuries.
1415. Boris VS.. Harshbarger. Montgomery
c. G. Affirmed. Davis, il. In an action by
an indorsee, before maturity, on a note
negotiable by the law merchant, an an
swer is not sufficient which AYERS only that
it was executed without consideration. But
in order for the answer to avail Ii should
state that the plaintiff was not a purchaser
for value in good faith. 2. Where a person,
to be otherwise, and who has not been
found to be otherwise by proper proceed
ings for that purpose, fairly and bona fide
purchases property and receives and uses
the same whereby the contract of purchase
becomes. so far executed that the parties
cannot be placed in statu quo. such con-
ply
ment for the goods refused. either by the
alleged lunatic or his representatives.
Room John L. McMaster. Judge.
Otis c. Ham VS.. John B. Ham: parti-
ton. On trial by jury.
Room 3..Pliny w. Bartholomew. Judge.
Madeline G.. Boyle VS.. George O.. Boeck-
ling: breach of promise. On trial by jury.
Home Brewing Company VS.. Edward l..
Jones. note. Judgment for 1922 90.
Benjamin Richcreek VS.. John J. Smith:
street lien. Judgment for So. p. Decree of
foreclosure and sale ordered.
New Suits Filed.
John T. Prize ct al. VS.. Leon Selig: suit
on account. Superior Court. room 2.
Benjamin Richcreek VS.. David Carver ct
al; suit on Barrett law bonds. Superior
Court, room 1.
North Side Savings and Loan Association
Superior Court, room 2.
Josephine Easton VS.. William Easton;
suit for divorce. Superior Court. room 3.
Marcus Harvey VS.. Nancy j. Harvey;
suit for divorce. Superior Court, room /.
Jennie Urmey VS.. George Urmey; suit for
divorce. Superior Court, room 5.