The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-25

So 81 cement was 10 remedy any defect, but
h0 3d. 10 teach the purchaser how to use it.
- zzlI- city OF Richmond VS.. Test. Wayne
=. Y. Reversed. Robinson, c. IA munic-
spa. corporation. which has constructed a
s{stefn OF sewers upon the best modern
pan Tor conducting and discharging sewage
ana drainage, and discharges the same into
9 natural watercourse which is the natural
drainage or the land on which the city is
SITUATED, and has made the sewers to con-
form 10 the natural drainage and water
courses which had previously carried its
surface drainage, is not liable in damages
70 riparian owner by reason of pollut-
ING 5S,5 the water with such sewage.
ca 2SJz e 4 5 E. Railway Company VS..
6S59ulter. Montgomery c. c.. Affirmed.
Black, il A special verdict will not be
SET ASIDE and the facts found in it cannot
be distegarded upon merely technical and
refined criticism of it's form. when ii con-
talns all the material facts necessary to
sustain Judgment. 2. Where an action is
ctoIiinenced against railroad company for
the Killing OF stock in the county where
such killing takes place but is venued to
another county. and judgment is recovered
provided for in Section 53l6 r. S. 1894. NAV
De made in the court in which judgment is
231S. Woods VS.. Matlock. Rush G. G. At
nrmed. SLACK, il. A promise upon a val
liable consideration to make a provision by
WI Is a valid contract, and an action will
lie for its breach 2. Where a person has
received sum of money in trust for an
other and agrees to repay the same by a
provision IN his will an action will lie in
his death.
2Sl6. Booz VS.. Hinkle. Huntington c. c.
Afnrmed. Henley il. Where a suit is
brought upon a contract and there is no
aVerment in the complaint that it was in
writing 1t Will be presumed to have been in
parol. z When contract is entered into
between and b, that in consideration of
A transferring to his note payable by c.
ana cause the latter to convey to B certain
interest in real estate B will deliver to A a
certain horse, which note and horse are de-
llvered as agreed, but A fails to cause c
70 make the transfer of real estate, the
transaction is not one within the statute of
frauds and need not be in writing to entitle
to maintain an action against A.
gay. Brittenham vs. Robinson. Wells c.
establish persons residence it is not nec-
essary that there should be an intention to
remain permanently at a chosen domicile
~ is enough II It rs for time the home to
the exclusion of other places. 2. The resi-
dence of person depends upon his acts and
intentions. And the declarations of such
proper proof as testimony to show his in
tentions. 8. The mere opinion of a witness
with reference to a persons residence can
not aid court in determining the ques-
ton of residence from facts proven and
such evidence may properly be objected to-
u,S SS16 Ludwig VS.: State Of Indiana Ma
Where an applicant for license to sell
liquors is refused such license by the
County Commissioners, and he appeals to
the Circuit Court which court orders the
commissioners to grant him the license
such license, when the judgment of the Cir
cult Court is not appealed from; although
free from collateral attacks. and affords
licensee all the privileges granted.
1J 1889. speeder Cycle Company vs. Teeterss
Where by the terms of a contract for en-
ployment the tenure of service cannot be
determined such contract is one at will and
ticn of either party. 2 This court will not
look to the evidence to. determine the suf-
fciency of the pleading, but will take the
pleading as it is, and 1T must stand or fall
according to its own strength or weakness.
3: The sufficiency OF pleading is ques-
ton of law.
Reversed. Henley, il. When the owner
of real estate contracts with a person to
clear said real estate, giving him full con-
troll over the work, the owner is not liable
for the negligence of the party to whom
the contract is let, if the doing of the work
does not necessarily create nqisance, and
if a third person is injured by Negligence of
such contractor the latter is liable therefor
and not his employer, unless the work was
done by special orders of the owner. 2. In
order to sustain a verdict for damages
arising from the negligence of the defend
ant in setting out fire the special findings
should show that the plaintiff is free from
negligence.
2697. G. & E. Railway Company. VS..
Bailey. Pulaski c. c. Petition for rehear-
2ie4. Ballard VS.. Citizens street-railroad
Company Marion S. c.. Petition for re-
hearing overruled.
297 Phillips VS.. Stone Company. Nor
gan c. c. Certiorari granted.
2191. Wrought Iron Bridge Company VS..
Commissioners Hendricks County Marion
c. c. Petition to file cross errors over
ruled.
2529 McFarlan VS.. State. Delaware c. c.
Transferred TO Supreme Court.
2216. School Township VS.. National Bank.
Boone c. C. Motion to strike out part of
opinion rejected.
Superior Court.
Room 1-B. S. Higgins, Special Judge.
Frederick Rand. receiver. VS.. John c.
Wright and John G. New. On trial by jury.
Room 2-Lawson M Harvey, Judge.
Ida G. Mitchell VS. the City of Indian
apolis; damages. Demand, $4,000; on trial
by jury.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
A. E. Playfool VS.. John ]. Harrison; dam
ages Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff
for 800.
Mary Kirk vs. Henry Steggemeyer; APP
peal. On trial by jury.
New Suits Filed.
The John Hancock Mutual Insurance Com
pany vs.. John Armstrong ct al; suit to
foreclose mortgage. Superior Court Room 2.
Mann ct AL; street lien. Superior Court,
Room 2.
The Indiana Bond Company VS.. John M.
Stowell ct al; street lien. Superior Court,
Room 1.
Alexander Mitchell VS.. Libbie l.. Mitchell;
suit for divorce. Superior Court, Room l.