The Indianapolis journal., 1896-11-25
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1851. Stares vs. ALE. Morga c. c.
Reversed. McCabe, il An amendatory
deed conveys no title unless the grantee
therein Is the same in the deed so
amended. 2. a certified transcript of an
unrecorded mortgage cannot be admitted
in evidence. g. W hen the clerks final GER
tificate shows that the record contains a.
full, true and correct copy of the records
and judgment of the court in the cause as
appears from the records in his office, such
showing is binding until the contrary APP
pears. 4. 1t is reversible error to allow
evidence introduced which is only relevant
to the issue when based upon an inference
which is not established.
1888. Moore VS. Horner. Boone c. c.
Reversed. Monks, il. A mistake or neg
used as a ground for relief unless ii would
have been excusable If attributable to the
client. 2. Whenever a matter is adjudicated
and finally determined by a competent tri
bunal Ii is forever at rest.
1923. Harris VS.. Savings, etc, Company.
HendrieRs C. ,aran,ns Aiiirmed, maGkney, H. H.
regular judge may appoint special judge
to try the case, and after Judgment has
been rendered, In the petition Tor the APP
pointment of a receiver Of the property,
the court may appoint as special judge TO
hear such proceedings "a person other than
the one who tried the case.
1884,. Fidelity Lodge VS.. Bond. Henry
c. c. Affirmed. Howard. il. An owner
OF real estate cannot have the use of d
such use excludes the other party. 2. There
can be neither doors nor windows ar other
openings constructed In party wal by
privacy of the other party may be in
vaded. ~, - =. .e
firmed. Jordan c. J.-Where a testator
devised his real estate TO his wife and her
sister long as both or either or them
may live, giving to the wffe r the OH power 10 70
she deems it advisable. and in accordance
Herewith she conveys TO the son and oniy
child of the nephew: held, that children OF
ha born
conveyance by the widow take no tt!e
under the will and conveyance.
I1Sl6 Burns VS.. Manufacturing Company.
Upton c. c. Affirmed. Hackney, J.
Where a complaint seeks a recovery tor a.
personal injury received by the detective
Condition of the defendants machinery II
will be insufficient when it shows that the
detective condition was known to the plain
tiff, although he relied upon tba s tne promise
17e2e Olerick VS.. Ross. Lake c. c. Az
hrmed. Monks. il. In order to probate
Evidence Ten that all the requirements Of Sec
tion 2746 r. s.. 1884, were complied with,
but said section does not require an s.,.eSi
ing clause showing that the iegal "a iormaii- +
ties we're complied with. 1t is sufficient If
the witnesses subscribe their names as
witnesses under or opposite tne %oro MI NIL
ness" or attest or other "oius Vi iiAe
i'irSe,hs f45ss. Makepeace VS.. Bronnenberg.
Henry c. c. Afiirmedr re 1ot 10Fasn Embraced or
included Within Section 1909. X. s, 1854.
which defines the phrase under legal dis
ahilities." 2. Where guardian Is empow-
cred to defend all suits brought against
his ward, and having appeared ana oe,
tended i'm suit TO quiet title. the ward W, VIII
- hound bv the decree rendered ). The
ee,,Iinp and signing of a bill OF exceptions
is q indicial act and is not valid without
H. SIGNATURE of the judges.
I7oss Gray vs.. Oushton Puiask =. =.
Affirmed, McCabe. Jon an appeal from
an interlocutory order appointing re,
oaivar the sufficiency of the facts stated
i'm the complaint to constitute a cause OF
nction cannot be urged when the complaint
a. a., III respects is pending In the trial court
- subject TO amendments
i3e6l r II. & l.. X. K. CO. vs CITY or
Son,b Rend. St Joseph c. c. Reversed.
Tordan @ ii. Where new statute COW
ors the whole subject matter OF an older
ono adds new provisions and prescrlbes
ois, o!a a., nenalties and Is evidently in
tnScd 70 supersede and take the place of
| The nrior act the latter Is Responsible by
;rnnlication. and II is error for the court
/ 20 strike out and refuse TO CONSIDER the re-
! pealing statute I'm prosecution pased
! thereon. Yro,,o. =, q.
/ 1-eS2 Field VS. Brown Lawrence < u
| Reversed Hackney. J.-Where one para
| graph of complaint is one of law and the
others CT equitable cognizance the case may
| he tried by Il jury. as the statute gives the
! rirht 10 Join legal and equitable causes OF
17So5. Herrick VS.. Finn. Wabash c. c.