The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-02-20
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1852. Arnold VS.. Arnold Ripley c. 9. Re-
seeking Statutory remedy s all the pe grounds
for the action must be alleged in the COM
plant.
Huntington c. c. Reversed. Jordan, ia
complaint filed by receiver in his own
name, to sufficiently state cause of action.
must show by proper averments that leave
of court to institute and prosecute the ac-
tion has been first obtained.
1884. Park VS.. Obenchain. Morgan G. G.
Affirmed. Monks J.-When a case is adju-
dicated and finally determined by a compe-
tent tribunal it is considered forever at rest.
tually was determined. but also extends to
every other matter which the parties might
have Htigated in the case.
17058. MILESTONE VS.. Baker. Madison c.
c. Affirmed. Howard, J.-Beneficiaries,
though not parties to a contract, may main
tain an action to enforce a vendors lien for
the unpaid price of the purchase money.
1n75. Stroup VS.. Stroup. st. Joseph c. c.
Reversed. Hackney, IA conveyance or
devise of lands to trustee, whose title is
nominal only, and who has no power of dis
position or management of such lands, is
direct conveyance to the beneficiary. 2)
Where a deed is given, only to take effect
construed to be testamentary in it's charac-
ter. 90 Absolute seizure during coveture is
not always necessary to the enforcement of
the widows interest
1879. Drulliner VS. Summers. La Porte c.
c. Motion to renstate withdrawn.
17449. Street-Railway Company vs. Hick-
ley. Hancock c.. c. On motion of appel
lantS appeal dismissed.
Appellate Court.
1901. Myers VS.. Union Railway Company.
Marion Reversed. Davis, I'D No demands
necessary before bringing an action to collect
street assessment. C9 Where the law does
not read into the statute, in relation to the
collection of assessments for street improve
ments, demand, as necessary condition
precedent before suit, no demand is neces-
Sary.
1922. South Bend Manufacturing Com
pany Liphart. st. Joseph c. G. Re-
versed. Lotz I'D When complaint is
definite liability, that is sufficient compli-
ance with the rule that complaint must
be definite in theory. ca If there be two or
persons separate to time and place, but
all producing a given injury, the tort feas-
ors are not all jointly liable, but each is
only liable for the injury produced by his
separate act.
i4lo McCloy VS.. Cox. Madison c. c.
Affirmed. Reinhard, J.--Where a verdict is
sustained by the law and the courts finding
as ,o to the a fact. 1t will be affirmed i,.
pellants petition for rehearng.
1901 Street-railway Company vs. Lowe.
Hamilton c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled
1853 l.. S. & NJ. S. Railway Company VS..
Anthony. Steuben c. C. Petition for re-
hearing overruled
Superior Co1rt.
Room John l.. McMaster Judge
Benjamin Richcreek Tvs. Jno. Towers;
paid. ~ SWIFT
Room 3-Pliny w. Bartholomew, Judge.
Frances Wilkinson vs. James r. Carnes:
foreclosure Finding in favor of Henry
Coburn for $s13.72.
Room 2-Lawson NJ. Harvey, Judge.
Frederick NJ. Snyder vs. Susanah Rug
giles; street Improvement lien. Dismissed
and costs paid.
Jno A. Finch VS.. Geo. W. Bailey and
James Dowell; foreclosure. Judgment VS..
defedants for s., 967.07. Sale ordered.
Nettie Sherer ct al. VS.. Thos Sherer ct al.
partition of real estate. l.. 3. Eubanks ap-
pointed commissioner to make sale. Bond
5000
Robert B. Keith vs. T. NJ. Whilden ct
al. Dismissed and costs paid.
New Suits Filed.
Provident Savings, Loan and Investment
Association VS.. Clara HESS ct al; suit to
foreclose. Superior Court. Room 3.
c. W. Williams vs.. Eugene Harris suit
in replevin Superior Court, Room l.
w. J. Riley ct al. VS.. Elmer E. Smith
suit on note. Superior Court, Room l.
Geo. E. Stenzle ct al. VS.. Geo. K. Share;
suit on note. Superior Court, Room 3.
Minerva e. Dunn VS.. Martin Dunn suit
for divorce. Superior Court, Room 2.
Lizzie F. Green ct al vs. Emma Thorn
ton; suit for damages. Superior Court,
Room 1.