The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-21
THE COURT

Supreme Court.

17039. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railway
Company VS.. McCorkle. Marion G. G. Re
versed. McCabe, G. i'll. When the giving
of erroneous Instructions is assigned in
an appeal to the appellate tribunal the
appellant must point out specifically the
particular Instructions sought to be as
as to require the trial court to re-exarmine
and review. each particular ruling by itself
rulings complained of. 8. Each particular
ruling must be pointed out in the exception
and the motion for a new. trial with a
covery for damages is based upon two
separate and distinct defects in a piece of
machinery or car both must be specifically
proved and it is error to instruct the jury
that a recovery may be had upon proving
one defect.
l7112. Fowler, Guardian VS.. Maus. Marion
S. C. Affirmed. Monks, IA person pre-
tending to buy property subject to a mort
gage and pays off mortgage and it sub
fe tbe Ispd appears be IS e snat ns to .eI be- sub 1o ates
to such lien and equity will keep it alive
for his indemnity.
Appellate Court.
1926. Eva VS.. Rogers, Clark G. G. Re
entered into between a man and woman
one of whom is not qualified. to make a
contract is void and e ca reeon be enfe eac
breach of such contract. z. It Is not error
to admit a certified copy of a decree OF
the Circuit Court showing when a divorce
was granted. 3. When it appears that the
damages awarded are excessive by the
reason of prejudice or passion the judy
1872. Miami county VS.. Woodring. Miami
c. c. Affirmed. Lott, il. A person per-
forming work at the solicitation OF the
county clerk, such as printing the names OF
the nominees to be voted upon at an election,
is entitled to recover under the statute
II the work is done in aceordance Win
to recover on a quantum merut. A
single paragraphsof answers cannot perform
the double function of both denying ana
confessing and avoiding the complaint.
1472. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago
Railway Company VS.. McCorkIe: Newton
G. G. Affirmed Davis, il. Where fire is
shown to nave originated from q. worn and
defective spark a~rrester on a locomotive
a prima facie case of negligence IS mace
same engine having started fre IN the I'M
mediate vicinity may be suff1cient evidence
to warrant a finding against the company.
Superior Court.
Room 1-John L. McMaster. Judge.
William r. Mercer VS.. The Console
dated Coal and Lime Company; contract.
On trial by juryJs9
Room 2-vinson Carter, Judge Pro Tenn.
7. w. Stout VS.. Maurice Harrowitz; dam
Mary Shaffner VS.. Citizens street-rail-
read Company;l damages. On trial by
jury.
Edgar A. Brown, Judge.
Rertie sSteinhauer Va. Bennett Barnett;
SANDER. On trial by jury.
Kate Dean vs.. Martha P. ,Worley; SANDER.
Dismissed by plaintiff at her cost.
New Suits Filed.
Charles Maxwell VS.. Thomas \. King ct
al. suit on street lien. Superior Court,
Room /.
William +. Hayes ct al. VS.. William
Perry eta AL; suit on street lien. Superior
c0 William in0o r. Echoles VS.. Clarence smoek
ct al; suit on note. Superior Court,
Room 8.
owen McAree VS.. Catharine McAree; suit
for divorce. Superior Court. Room 1.
Peter f. Conway VS.. Mary Conway; suit
for divorce. Superior Court, Room Z.
Paul E.. Kraft VS.. Peter II. Noon ct al;
suit on note. superior Court, Room l..
Nathan f. Dalton ct al. vs.. Russell C.
Kelsey; suit on account. Superior Court,
Room 2.