The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-05
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1920. Senour VS.. Matchett. Marshall C.
e Reversed Jordan. il. In order to en-
must establish the facts necessary to rem
der the order of the County Board of Re-
view void 2. If the board of review had no
right under the law then existing to add
legal-tender notes held in bona fide man
ner by the plaintiff, still it was within its
province to determine whether he had tenn
.porarily converted his taxable money into
these notes for the express purpose of evad-
ing the payment of taxes thereon, and if it
made a mistake or reached a wrong con-
clusion it cannot be held upon a collateral
attack that its action or decision therein
was void. 3. When the board obtains juris-
dicton over the person by virtue of notice
provided by the statute or upon appearance
OF the taxpayer, its action or decision is
by an appeal or some other direct author
lied proceedings.
TITO. Standard Oil Company VS. BANKER
Lake c. c. Affirmed. Hackney, il Rul-
ings upon demurrer and motions addressed
to the pleadingss and in the making up of
parts of the trial, and have no place prop
erly, in a motion for a new trial. 2 A
expert witness on the facts he claims to
be the facts OF the case, and the trial court
ought not to reject the question because he
thinks such facts are not sufficiently es-
tablished. 3. Where there are several
charges of negligence, either of which is
sufficient, it is rot necessary to prove the
several charges IN order to recover. 4. The
fellow-servant rule does not apply where
the breach of duty resulting in an injury is
coming from the master to the injured
servant. 5. The master having manufac-
tured his own appliances, he is chargeable
binary care and diligence would have dis
covered
Afirmedi Howard, il. The mere pur-
chase of the stock in trade of a party is
sufficient consideration for that party's
agreement to abstain from carrying on the
particular trade in the place where the pur-
chaser Is to enjoy 1T. 2 in the absence of
Qrut ion fny~
themselves 8. Only in case a contract is
against public policy. or that it has been
forceable. 3. A contract in restraint of trade
is not void merely on the ground that the
17i1s PISS Is Hn as to its Duration
ton for rahearing overruled.
1716s.. Clapp VS.: Hadley. Noble c. c. Pc
tition for rehearing overruled.
Appellate Court.
1863. L. E. & w. Railway Company vs.
Hilfilker. Jay G. c. Reversed. Davis, j.
/. A complaint should plead facts alone and
not mere conclusions of law. 2. The owner
of real estate may erect upon the boun-
dares of his own land. not interfering with
any natural or prescriptive water course,
such barriers as he may deem necessary to
keep off surface water.
1lS Alexandria Building Company VS..
McHugh. Madison &. c.. Petition for re-
hearing overrued. Ross, C. J.--Notice of
intention to hold lien upon property must
statute all rights as such lien holders
are lost
1446 Ellnger vs. rawlings. Madison G.
c. Affirmed. Gavin, il. Parties litigant
cannot take the chances of a favorable an
swer and then ..Strike OUT If the answer
does not suit. 9 Whatever may be the act
ual authority of an agent, but the limits of
his authority not known to third person,
the jury has the right to find from the evil
dence the apparent scope of his authority.
Superior Court.
Room 1-John L. McMaster, Judge.
VIM c. Rehling ct al. VS.. August Rel
man; sprinkling. Judgment for plaintiff
for $S.S6.
Room 3-Pliny W. Bartholomew, Judge.
John A. Ford vs. John V. Coyner appeal
from johnson, ]. p. Jury finds for defend
ent.
Edgar a. Brown, Judge.
Mary J. Yorke VS.. Isabella J. Yorke's Es-
tate. Claim allowed by administrator for
SEQ and costs.
Thomas Moorhouse vs.. Mary E. Penny
ct al; to set aside will. On trial by jury
New Suits Filed.
The Acme Paving and Contracting Com
pany VS.. Barnard Keenan,; suit to foreclose
Street lien. Superior Court. Room /.
Mutual Home and Savings Association
VS. BENJAMIN Frey ct AL. suit to foreclose.
Superior Court, Room 2.
Carl Na1landigham VS.. Glenn Trfmble; suit
for damages. Superior Court