The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-05-16
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1884. Fesler VS. Brayton. Marion 8. C.
Reversed. McCabe, j.
/. The term of Office of member of the
General Assembly ends with the expiration
of the term for which he was elected
whether his successor is elected or not
2 Any law. however defective. must, stand
so long such law is necessary for the ex-
istence of the organization of the State.
3. One department of the government can
not coerce another to exercise q mere dis
cretionary power.
T. The apportionment act of 1885 being the
only law under which a Legislature can be
elected Ii will continue TO be the law until
valid apportionment act is passed by the
Legislature
1859. Lowe VS.. Turpie. Cass {. c. Re
versed. Monks, j.
l. The covenant In a deed absolute on its
face, but intended a mortgage or a paroi
contract made at the time of the execution
of the deed, whereby the grantee agrees to
pay a debt of the grantor due another per-
son, cannot be enforced by such person
against the grantee. for Such an agreement
is nothing more in effect than an agree
ment' to advance the amount of the debt or
incumbrance as a loan upon the security of
the land conveyed. and the measure of dam
ages in favor of the grantor for failure to
carry out the agreement is the same as the
breach of contract TO loan money direct,
and such damages must be the natural and
proximate consequences or the breach of the
contract
2 When one is indebted to another and
fails to pay the same when due, the dam
ages for the delay in payment is the allow
ance of interest on the debt.
3. When one person furnishes the money
TO another TO discharge an incumbrance
from the land of the person furnishing the
money and the person undertaking to dis
charge the incumbrance neglects to do IL.
and the land is lost to the owner by reason
of the incumDrance, the measure of the
damages is the money furnished with inter-
est or the value of the land according to the
circums tances. n
T. II the owner of real estate, who has a
contract with another to loan him money
TO pay membranes on his land who re-
fuses to do so, has knowledge of such re-
fusal In time 10 give him an opportunity to
seek for ii elsewhere. the fact That he can
not procure the money elsewhere will not
entitle him 10 recover more than nominal
damages.
1880. HiIbish VS.. Hattie. EIkhart C. C.
Affirmed. Howard, j.
1. IL notice is given to nonresident i'm a
divorce proceeding as is provided by the
statute, the judgment OF divorce viii be
secure against collateral attack
. n divorce decreed in another State dis
solves the marriage contract and the d.
divorced wife has no interest in the prop
erty conveyed by her husband before their
divorce
3. A post-nuptial contract may bind the
parties thereto from asserting ownership
in each others property.
1888. Lewis VS.. Teegarden. Parke c.. C.
Mandate modified. Hackney, c. j.
l. One who challenges the mental capac-
ity of a testator or donor has the burden of
establishing the absence Of the particular
capacity in issue.
2. The mere fact that an old man Is weak
and childish. ard makes his home with his
daughter and depended upon her and her