The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-10-22
THE COURT
Supreme Court.

1897. Board of Commissioners vs.. Board
Of commissioners. Washington G. {. Al
firmed. Hackney, J.-Before one county
can charge another county for the con-
struction of a bridge in which both are in
must be shown that public convenience re-
quired the bridge; 90 that an application
for the bridge was made to one of the
boards Interested; CD that such board de-
clared its Willingness to aid in the con
struction; Cl that said board gave notice
thereof to the other board interested; 90
that both boards interested, by resolution,
expressed d Willingness TO build the bridge;
o) that the boards, by concurrent resolu-
ton, caused a survey to be made and plans
and specifications prepared and were con-
sidered ct a joint meeting held to deter.
mine the kind of bridge and the manner of
1881. c.. G., c. & st: L. Railway Com
pany W Momentum; Madison S G Re
infant who has received Injuries ar the
HAND of another may, under Sec, 267. r. S.
1894, maintain an action against the wrong
doer for the injury sustained. 2. Simply
because a car is crowded it Will not Justify
a passenger in leaving the car and standing
upon the steps in a place of danger, and
by leaving a place of safety and aking a
position in a dangerous one, such action
viii be deemed contrihlltory negligence.
Affirmed. McCabe, 1.-THE failure of the
Circuit Court to REQUIRE the foreign ex-
ecutor of a will to file an authenticate
copy of his appointment and require the
foreign will to be recorded before granting
an application to sell real estate is an ir-
regularity, but it will not deprive the court
Of jurisdiction over the subject matter. and
the judgment of a court cannot be coilat-
orally impeached when In rendering the de-
cision it had jurisdiction of the subject and
parties. 2. Where it is sought TO c~ollater-
tice to the parties against whom it is rem
dered the complaint must allege that the
record of the Judgment sought to be i'm
peached discloses on the subject of notice
or the complaint will be bad on demurrer.
Appellate Court.
1852. Morrison VS.. Board of Commission
ers. Decatur c: c. Petition for rehearing
a township trustee attempts to bind the
county for the payment of supplies to be
The expiration of his term Of one is yoid
as against public policy.
2042. Hay VS.. Lands Miami C. c.. At
firmed. Lott, J.-WherP the complain
shows that the defendant conspired TO
cheat and defraud the plaintiff of s. by
resenting that Others were willing to buy
the article. and that the defendants knew
that the plaintiff bought the same for the
purpose of selling to those parties, and that
letters patent were of no value. it will he
sufficient to withstand a demurrer. ?.
When a complaint is good it is proper for
the court 10 overfule a motion for judg-
mont upon the pleadinCs:
1852. l.. n. A. & c. Railway Company vs..
Barnes. Clark G.. c. Reversed. Reinhard.
il. A complaint declaring on a contract
must aver and the evidence must show a
cover on the theory of his complaint.
Superior Court.
Room John L. McMaster. Judge.
W. Carleton VS.. Robert Hobbs: on ac-
count. Finding and judgment for plaintiff
for $40.
George Anderson vs.. Frank Harding;
notes. On trial by court.
J. Livingston vs.. l.. Griever; damages.
Dismissed and costs paid.
Felix McWherter VS.. Joseph Wells: on
note. Finding and Judgment for plaintiff
for 1851 and costs.
Room 2-Lawson M. Harvey, Judge.
Emil Wulschner VS.. Lizzie Schell: notes.
Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the
sum of $226.50.
William V. Rocker VS.. Joseph d. Copper
smith ct al; suit for legal services. on
trial by jury. Jury out.
c. j. Gardner ct al. W. White Bros. ct
al; injunction and receivership. On trial
by court.
Room 3-Pliny w. Bartholomew. Judge.
George w. McCray vs.. Martin .McGinty:
lien. Finding there is due &1l.S7.
ROYAL Robinson VS.. Excelsior Brick and