The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-10-01
THE COURT RECORD.
Suprenne Court.

1886 Greene VS.. Brown. Hamilton c. c..
| Reversed Hackney, J.-Where land was
money never paid, subsequently conveys
the south half to c. who assumes and
agrees to pay one-half of the purchase
| money due A, and subsequent to this trans
action and each mortgage their in
were duly recorded. Thereafter A was ad-
judged insane and his guardian obtained u
judgment against B and G for the pur-
chase money, which was declared a ven
doris lien on the property, subject TO the
mortgages executed by Il and Z; ana the
guardiaIl purchased the land at the sale on
the decree and during the year for re-
demption A died, whereupon the sheriff
conveyed the land to the heirs of A, which
included b and and others. Afterwards
the mortgages executed by and G We're
foreclosed and the property purchased by
the mortgages. but an administrator or
the estate of A having been appointed he
redeemed the land with the money OF the
estate from the last mentioned sale, but
neither of the sums was paid to the estate;
subsequently a partition was had among
the heirs of A, which resulted in part of
the south half being set off to a part of
said heirs as tenants in common, subse-
quently a partition was had by the heirs OF
the property set off to them and afterwards
by an exchange OF properly 80 a &c cer IAN
and 3 conveyed his interest to E. f, G. and
II, but before the first partition q and III
mortgaged their undivided interest to anr
other person. After the second partition b
mortgagad his interest to two different
persons by different mortgages. f also
executed a mortgage to an outside party
for his interest, also after the decree in
partition proceedings. The attorneys for the
persons above named claimed a lien against
the land for their services, and after the
release of the mortgage F executed the
claim of the attorneys was put into a
mortgage and duly recorded. All of said
mortgages We're put on record before the
release of the mortgages of and Q were
satisfied.
Held that the administrator by the re-
demption of the land from the sale on the
mortgages executed by b and c had no
q b. n
terest of was subject to the lien of the
administrators for redemption from said
superior to that of the attorneys as against
the interest of G, but that their mortgage
that of the estate as against that OF 3.
1875. Scott VS.. Runner. Jasper G. G.
Reversed. McCabe, J.-One court cannot
control the execution of the orders of an
other of equal jurisdiction.
1889. Decker VS. Fesler Madison 5 c.
Affirmed. Howard, J.-Where a minor
woman marries and her husband is also a
minor the court may appoint a guardian
for the purpose of selling or exchanging
the land of the wife.
Appellate Court.
2O31. Clark VS.. Trublood. Madison c. c.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Gavin, jim suit on lost note 1t is
complaint that the loss of the note should
be shown by affidavit. In a suit on lost
note variance between the copy and the
aote described as to time of maturity. rate
of interest and attorneys fees does not
make the complaint bad on demurrer 3.
An exhibit controls the statement of the
complaint. 4. An in6orser of note
negotiable by the law merchant is only
liable to the assignee after due diligence
the makers or on showing lawful excuse
for not pursuing them.
Affirmed Reinhard. J.-When note is not
made payable in bank and it is placed in
the hands of a person for collection. and
he collector inserts in the note. with a
lead pencil, the name of the bank where
he ndorser and maker transacted
their business for the purpose OF a memoir
andum for his own convenience. such in
sertion viii not be material alters zion
If the note so as to render it void.
2IaS. Fire insurance Company vs.. Stebe.
Tippecanoe S. C. Affirmed. Lott. il.
Where a suit is brought on an instrument
n the hands of the adverse party, who
fuses to deliver the instrument, such fact
aling q copy of the instrument with the
complaint where such facts alleged in
the complaint 2. Rulings of the trial
this court until they have been presented
TO the trial court in motion for a new
trial. Unless trial court has been given
win be considered waived.
1892 Mattix VS. Leach. Upton c. c.
1850 Rarey VS.. Lee. Howard G. c. Mo-
ton to modify mandate overrulsd.
Superior Court.
Room John L. McMaster, Judge
John Carroll VS. John Dittemore; on note.
Plaintiff dismissed. Costs paid.
Ephriam kroot VS.. Sarah Tlnge. alas
Kroot, to set aside marriage. On trial by
Judge William T. Grown. judge pro tern-
Room 2--I4awson VI. Harvey. Judge.
Mary E. Shortridge VS.. William G. Short
ridge. divorce. Decree granted Defendant
On cross-eomplafnJ.
Room s-Pliny W. bartholomew. Judge.
Calvin Fl. Snith VS.. Ida Il Moore ct al: