The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-12
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1901. State ex rel. Board of Commission
ers vs. Boice Benton G; G. Petition for
enrolled bill as signed BY the speaker Of
the House of Representatives, the Presi-
dent of the Senate, and approved by the
dence of what was enacted by the Legs-
lature 2. The. fee and salary provisions
of the acts of 1891 included complete
system of fees between the officer and the
public and the salary provision should be
considered in their various classes of Of
sidered apart from the other features Of
the law. g., When certain provisions of
affecting other elements of the law the
repeating clause of the act is not defeated
by 18th the partial in nvaIIdity of the act
Randolph c. G. Affirmed. Jordan J.--It is
presumed that appraisers appointed to as
public improvement discharged the duties
enjoined upon them by the statute and as
sessed benefits to each and all lots and
person notified of an assessment against
his property has his day in court under
erty without due process of law.
17275. Forsythe VS.. City of Hammond
T Porter C. nroS & Affirmed fnr Howard }Ths
unplatted lands to city by proceedings
before the county board does not require
that it shall be stated in the petition that
the owner will not consent to annexation.
2 In order that any land may be annexed
to city it it, must touch the existing city
right or authority to annex contiguous UNI
recorded, plated lots. 4. Where proceed
they may be attacked collateraIly except in
case of estoppel: s. All presumption will
when once jurisdiction is shown but if it
appears that facts essential to jurisdiction
are wholly wanting the prescriptions in
favor of the tribunal must cease.
1922. Clark VS.. Clark Delaware c. c.
Dismissed under Rule 20.
Appellate Court.
1902 Daugherty VS.. Hoffstetter Adams
G. c. Affirmed. Ross, c. 1.-THE principal
to note cannot, after the statutory
tsereon ha assew be BY making al
DJ5 Stump vs.. Smith. Huntington c.
C. Gavin, IA physician is bound to ex-
possessed and exercised by members of
his profession practicing in such locality
2 The conflict in the evidence is, so far
as this court is concerned. for the jury to
determine. 3. After the Circuit Court has
approved the verdict Of the jury all pre-
and it is not permitted to interfere unless
1t clearly appears that substantial justice
has not been done. A. In order to bring
for a new trial into the record they must
be brought in by bill of exceptions or order
1900 Coburn VS.. Bassett Marion G. C.
Affirmed Reinhard: J.-Assessments for
of special benefits like public sewers, but
according to the frontage 2. BY the Cen
eral Assembly jurisdiction is conferred
upon the city of Indianapolis to exercise
the right of eminent domain and to provide
upon what terms real estate in the city
may be drained by sewers. 8. A property
owner Is liable for the construction of both
private Sand public sewers along his prop
erty.
1881 Lay vs. State of Indiana. Randolph
c. c. Petition for rehearing overruled
Superior Court.
Room John l.. McAIaster Judge.
Fred Fuehring ct AL vs.. James r. Hurt;
sprinkling. Judgment for plaintiff for S. 49,
indianapolis Planning Mill Company VS.
Calvin W. Shelley ct al; mechanics lien
Finding and Judgment for plaintiff.
Oliver Wells VS.. Fort Johnson &c Co.;
damages. On trial by jury.
Room 3-Pliny w. Bartholomew, Judge.
Fair Haven Mantel Company VS.. William
Fl. Bennett. Appeal from Johnston. J. p
On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Edgar A Brown, Judge.