The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-14

list of omitted property added to the tax
duplicate some property which had already
been taxed is no reason for enjoining the
cOIleCtioa q! taxes on an property auded
II any OF 1t Is properly taxable. The proper
remedy is TO apply TO have the duplicate
lSt corrected. 4. The auditor has authority
by q proper proceeding to add omitted prop
erty to the assessment list of any tax
payer. 5. The Legislature has power to
provide how taxes shall be assessed and
collected. and what notice, if any. shall be
given to the owner of such assessment. 6.
A man cannot. by any conveyance or devise
of property for trust purposes free it from
the lien of the State for taxes which he
has failed to pay. 4. An express allegation
that part of the securities taxed were not
in the State is a tacit admission that the
others not mentioned were here, and there
fore properly taxable.
MORTGAGE Observation-Disclosures
OF JUDGMENT.
1851. Marion S. C. Tate VS.. Hamlin ct al.
Reversed. Hackney. il. Where the rec
ora only shows that the longhand manu-
script of the evidence was filed the same
qay as the bill of exceptions without show
ing mat its filing preceded its Incorporation
IN the bill, no question can be made ON the
evidence. z. Where a mortgage upon a
tract of land was foreclosed. and the prop
erty sold TO the mortgage and a suisse
quent mortgage on the undivided half was
foreclosed, and a decree obtained that, as
TO the holder of such mortgage. the prior
mortgage was not a lien OH the land, and
the undivided half of the land was sold UNI
der the second foreclosure, the purchase at
such second sale took the undivided half
free from any claim of the first mortgage
of redemption or otherwise, either under his
mortgage or his purchase on foreclosure
sale. 3. All parties TO a decree not appealed
from, except those in whose favor a review
is granted are bound by the decree. 4.
After a mortgage has been duly foreclosed
on the undivided half of a tract of land the
property sold to the ~mortgagee. and the
time for appeal, review and redemption has
expired, a person having title only to an
other undivided interest in the same land
cannot hold the half to which he has no
title, merely because the original owners,
proceeding in time, could have defeated the
foreclosure proceedings under which his CO.
tenant claims!
GUARDIANS BOND-SUIT ON-STAT-
UTE OF LIMITATIONS.
1868. Hamilton c. G, State ex rel. VS..
Parsons ct al. Reversed. Monks, il.
The settlement made by a guardian who
resigns during his wards minority. with an
other guardian appointed to. succeed MIN,
is not a final settlement within the mean
aside final reports of administrators and
similar fduciary officers to be brought
within three years. ?. Such settlement Is
only a partial settlement, and an action 10
set it aside may be joined with a SUIT on
the guardians bond. 3. Actions, on bonds
given prior to the enactment OF the code OF
1881 for breaches occurring before that GATE
must be brought within twenty years after
the cause of action accrued. 4. The statute
of limitations is a detense, anu y Is not
ordinarily necessary in a complaint on a
cause of action that is several years old
to show ~affirmatively that it comes within
an exception which prevents the stature
from running. Such fact may be set up
in a reply if the statute of limitations is
pleaded as a defense. 3. A company 70
alleges that the defendant received the con-
veyance with full knowledge of the fraudu-
lent intent of the grantor need not charge
that no valuable consideration was paid. 3.
1t is proper to sue in a single action upon
two or more bonds given by a guardian, IN
the course of his administrator OF a fust,
to recover for a neglect of his duties, when
the exact time that the default occurred
is not known.
Superior Court.
Room John L.. McMaster, Judge.
Catherine Arm. administrators, VS.. c., c,
o. Ter 4 81 ae Al Ea defeSSda GTm FOR $1,000.
James Mickey VS.. w, ]. Davidson ct al;
Plaintiff dismissed at his cost.
Alamo Cement Company VS.. James w.
Wilding ct al: account. Dismissed by plain
tiff at his cost
Room 2-Lawson M. Harvey, Judge.
George E. Hiatt, administrator. vs.: Penn
%sylvania Railway Company; damages. On
trial by jury. Jury out.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
United States Building and Loan lnsti-
tuition of Indiana VS.. Mary q. Lefeber ct al;
foreclosure. Dismissed by p%laintlf. Judg-
ment against plaintiff for costs.
John r. Mathews ct al. VS.. Sarah E. Car
ter ct ali. Finding for defendant. Judg-
ment against plaintiff for costs. p4aa
ing and judgment against defendant for
$26.25 and costs.
Criminal Court.
]. F. McCray, Judge.
State of Indiana VS.. Oliver Richards;
grand larceny. Committed TO Reform
State of Indiana VS.. William Browning;
assault and battery. Imprisonment in
state of Indiana VS.. George Robertson;
petit larceny. State prison on plea of
State of Indiana VS.. Thomas White; grand
larceny. Indiana R~eformatory not less
than one year nor more than fourteen.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Indianapolis Union Railway Company VS..
William H. Ryan ct al. injunction. Argu-
ment concluded and taken under advise
ment.
Jacob S. Adolph VS.. the Consumers Gas
Trust Company; damages. Superior Court,
Alice b. Ford VS.. Oliver B. Ford; divorce.
Addie May Totman VS.. Edwin Totman;
divorce. Superior Court. Room l.
Nathan H. Tankstan VS.; Polly Tanks
tan; suit for divorce. Superior Court,
Helen r. Edison VS.. Samuel E.. Evans ct
AL; suit to foreclose mortgage. Superior
George Eberhartv $. Louis CIafrey ct al.
suit to foreclose. Superior Court, Room J..
Kate NJ. Hornaday VS.. Miles G. Horna-
day; suit for divorce. Superior Court,
Alamo Cement Company VS.. James w
Wilding; suit on judgment. Superior Court,
The Mutual Home and Savings Associa-
ton VS.. Robert d. Hobbs ct al; suit to fore
close mortgage. Superior Court, Room 3.
----&0--
UTTGET NI(GENT on ID ArTNUNI