The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-02-06
THE COURT
Supreme Court.

1926: L.. y. A. & C: Railway Company
firmed. Monks, ii. An answer to a COM
plant for a specific performance of a con-
tract is sufficient which shows that the
tice. for he who seeks equity must do
equity. 2. In order to give a court of equity
Of a contract that the same be complete
and certain as we'll as fair, Just and equal
in all its parts. and that it be founded
upon a valid consideration. 1t must also be
capable of being specifically enforced and be
of a nature that the court can decree its
complete performance against both parties
without adding to its terms; it must APP
pear that the plaintiff has no adequate
remedy at law, and that a refusal to per-
him. 9. A general rule Is, when the con-
sideration on the part of the. plaintiff is
the doing of something in the future which
the court cannot compel, or when by its
terms the contract stipulates for a success
sion of acts whose performance cannot be
contaminated by one transaction, but will
be continuous and require protracted su-
pervision, specific performance will be re-
17347. May VS.. State. Madison C. c. At
irmed. Hackney, il. No specification in
the assignment of errors is sufficient unless
it indicates with clearness and precision
the ruling assailed. 2 A Judgment cannot
include the omitted elements of the verdict.
e. e OF i fns sfayeS waived Htai1 by i defend d
ant in a criminal case. A. Misconduct of
counsel in argument must be, specifically p and
1870. Ross VS.. Banta. Cass Z. G. Pets
ton for rehearing overruled. McCabe, c.
Jon d sale to satisfy a Judgment, if the
and parcels. each shall be offered separate
ly. and no more of any real estate shall be
offered for sale than shall be necessary
to satisfy the execution. z No exemption
is allowable on an execution for costs. 3.
The doctrine of estoppel in pals has no APP
p~lication where everything is equally known
I54s7. Brown VS.. state. St; Joseph e; e.
are INDUCED in in favor of the trial court
when the record does not come 20 this court
in an ineligible condition, 2. Where an al
legged errors occurring at the trial is not
made a motion for a new trial 1t will not
be considered on appeal.
1928. Bonfay vs.. Goar. Upton = =. Re
Tu4. Priest VS.. Lackey. Fulton c.. C.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
Appellate Court.
,1251. Dean VS.. Reynolds. Lake c. C.
Reversed. Davis, IA complaint for serv-
ices is sufficient when it pleads facts sufd-
cient to establish a lien under the statute.
1884. Schriver VS.. G. e. e. Railway Com
pany. Huntington c. G. Reversed. Gavin,
Jon demurrer to the evidence the court
is bound to accept as true all the facts
which the evidence tends to prove. and as
against the demurring party to draw from
the evidence all such reasonable differences
conflict in the evidence, then he court can
consider only such evidence as favorable to
the party against whom the demurrer is
directed, and that which is favorable to the
demurring party is deemed Withdrawn.
1881. = Lay vs.. state. HandOlpn =. u. Al
frmed. tReinhard, J.-Certainty to a COM
mon intent is a. that is required in Grim
inal pleadings in this state. and an indict-
ment or Information need not be more GER
tain than a civil pleading. Therefore, an
Indictment for removing a gate from a GEM
etery is sufficient without alleging the Gem
etery was either public or private.
1884. Snodgrass vs.. Meeks. Delaware G.
C. Petition for rehearing overruled.
Superior Court.
Room 3-Pliny W.. Bartholomew. Judge.
- - .rI:N I, + 800 L.. -
foreclose chattel mortgage. Judgment for
SS1.5 so. Decree of foreclosure and sale or
dered.
Williams H. Gordon VS.. Landen H. Garlic;
on note. judgment for $l43.37.
Gustie Brown VS.. Peter f. Conway; on
note. Judgment for $2g7.
Isadore Despo VS.. Alfred Despo; foreclos-
ure. Judgment for 81, 24G.4 40. Decree of fore
closure and sale ordered.
Economy Saving and Loan Association VS..