The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-09-26
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

17451 Goodwin VS.. State ex rel Foley
vigo S. C. Reversed Monks, i'll. Where
an act provided that il the common council
deem it expedient or in their opinion the
interest of the city requires a city attorney
and they elect one, they have the power at
any subsequent time to abolish such office,
the act of the legislature did not create
the Office but authorized the common coun-
Gil to determine whether they should have
such an officer 2 The power that creates
ton of the term of the officer. 3. In the
construction of statute every part of Ii
must be considered in connection with the
whole
17453. kirkland VS. Board of Public
Works. Marion c. G. Affirmed. Howard,
C. il. When a drainage of street is
constructed for the Improvement of a street
and not as sewer it may be charged to the
property owners as per running front foot.
2. After the confirmation of a resolution
of the Board of Public Works ten days adj
ditional are allowed during which resident
property owners upon the street may make
further remonstrance. 8. The. term resi-
dent freeholders refers TO those living along
tn line of Improvement.
1892 Forsythe VS.. Wilcox Porter G. C.
Affirmed; Hackney; III: Questions as to
way are waived by the failure of the re-
monstrant to raise them before the board
CT commissioners. ?. The Judgment of the
and only such questions nave been put
In issue before the board or may be per-
mitted by amendment may be tried In the
Soard are tried de novo in 'e the &c Circuit
Court and the inquiry Of this court is linn
tied to the I, It sosng tried sba In t the Gcs
ings of the board is void.
1881 Glassburn VS.. Deer. Johnson c. c.
Reversed in part and atiirm ned, in H., part.
ton of the board of commissioners to the
Circuit Court the whole case must be tried
de poyo 3 Where the establishment of
public highway affects property holders in
two counties an appeal taken from the ac-
ton OF the board of commissioners TO
the Circuit Court o. one county carries
tv and only one transcript need to be filed
in order that several appealing parties may
Of the board establishing highway
ming into single county. 3. Where
party has accepted his allowance for dam
appeal from the action of the board.
i13e5 Kitchener VS.. Tkresller Company.
r-r--,rd c. c.. Petition for rehearing over-
ruled.
Appellate Court.
1899. Coats VS. Huffine. Clinton c. c.
Affirmed Reinhard, G. J.-Where person
contracts for q quantity of goods ne rs
not bound to accept a smaller quantity than
ordered, unless he accepts portion OF
them in which case he Will be liable for
the whole amount and whether portion
Of the goods were accepted is a question
1880. Bowen VS.. Jones' Delaware c. c.
Affirmed Ross, 1.-THE signature to
paper not In evidence cannot De p-UNcH
for the purpose of comparing 1t with a
disputed signature ard TO establish the
genuineness of the latter, but where a
signature is admitted to be genuine and
already in evidence for other purposes Ii
may be compared with that in dispute;
1897 State ex rel Mckinney VS. Souder.
Allen c. c. Affirmed. Davis J.-There Is no
right OF action in the superior Court upon
an officers bond as provided by, Section 81
OF the act of 1879. to recover the penalty
prescribed in Section Of the act of 1883
1i02 L., n. A. e. c. Rairway Company
VS. Palmer. Porter c. C.--Motion 10 tax
costs overruled. There should be
some argument or statement accom-
panying a motion to tax costs in order for
this court to examine the matter COM
planned Of.
Superior COurt.
Room 1--John l. McMaster. Judge
e. A. Combs VS. The Insurance Company
OF North America; policy. Jury returned
special finding OF facts.
Samuel Hicks vs.. joseph NJ. HiRhtshoe
damages. On trial by jury.
Room e-vinson Carter. Judge pro tenn.
Krue ct al va sowders: foreclosure. Dis
missed Costs paid.