The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-13
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.
GAS

GAS
1879. Howard c.. c. Windfall Manufac-
turing Company VS.. Patterson ct al. Re-
versed. Howard, il. One who buys land
and erects a dwelling close to a busines
establishment or factory which has stood
and been operated there for several years,
and which does not constitute a nuisance
per Sc, cannot ordinarily complain success
fully Of the continued maintenance or
operation of the same in a reasonable man
ner, nor of the doing of acts incident there
to. 2. The boring Of a gas well should not
be e%njOined merely because, in ease Oil,
gas or water should be obtained and not
to the neighbors. 3. Unless a court or
equity is satisfied that the threatened evils
complained of as likely to follow a given
act which is itself lawful are imminent ana
certain 10 occur, il should not enJOln the
doing of such act. 4. The owner of a
dwelling has no right to enJoin the owner
of other land from sinking a gas well on
his own land 1872 feet from the dwelling
without showing that great damage to him
will result from boring such we'll 3. one
who builds a dwelling close to a tile factory
already operated by natural gas from a
well on it's own land should not be permit
ted to enjoin the owners from sinking an
other gas well on such land when the sup
ply from the first is exhausted.
Observation-Disclosures VIOLATION
OF CONTRACT.
1881. Miami C. c. Xenia, etc. Company
ct al. VS.. Macy. Affirmed. Monks, J.
/. A complaint, the sufticiency of which is
tested for the first time by an assignment
of error on appeal, will be held sufficient if
it states facts enough to bar another SUIT
an injunction and damages states facts en-
titling the. plaintiff to part OF the relief
asked it is sufficient to Withstand a de-
murrer for want of facts. ). a complaint
for an injunction need only show that the
plaintiff will suffer great injury by the DO
ing of the threatened acts and has no ade-
under our statute to aver or TO prove that
such injury will be irreparable., 4. An in
junction to prevent acts IN yiolatlQn OF a
contract, the specific performance Of which
could not be decreed, will sometimes be
granted. 5. An injunction was properly
granted to prevent the owners of a gas
We'll from cutting off the supply of an cleo
tric light plant which had been located and
erected in a town plat belonging to a former
gas to run it should be furnished from
that wei as long as it continued to produce
enough for that purpose.
Superior Court.
Room John L. McMaster, Judge.
Catherine Arm, administrative, VS.. c., c.,
Milton ssRRirk ct al. VS.. James M, Marker
ct al; on note. Dismissed and costs paid.
Room 2-Lawson M. Harvey, Judge.
George Hiatt, administrator, VS.. Pennsyl-
vania Railway Company; damages. On
trial by jury.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Summitville Brick Company vs.. Ernest
Buhneing; on bond. Finding and judgment
for plaintiff against defendant for $l60.S8
John r. Mathews ct al. VS., Sarah E. Car
ter ct al. On trial by court.
John Smithey VS.. CorydOn Sinner: dam
ages. Judgment on verdict against plaintiff
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
State of Indiana VS.. Adams Express Com
pany ct al. Redocketed on motion Of plain
tiff. Conclusions of law settled and Judg-
ment modih ed Pays 8 to s atjt93r3nieyI 7, genera fam aim m
cipal and interest of Judgment.
American Express Company pays to at.
tCrney general in open court the sum of
S28, 207.23 in full principal and interest of
State of Indiana VS.. the Adams Express
payment of taxes sued for and by agree
ment cause dismissed at defendants cost.
Judgment against defendant for costs.
State of Indiana VS.. American Express
Company. Plaintiff in open court admits
of taxes sued for and by agree
ment cause dismissed at defendants costs.
The United States Express Company,
Adams Express Company, American tx
press Company VS.. Sterling II. Holt, treas
urer Marion county ct al. CThree different
cases.) BY agreement of parties causes
dismissed, plaintiffs waving all right of ac-
ton or liability of any kind on injunction
bend arising out of said action. Costs
Margaret N. Graham VS.. Edward F. era
ham; on note. Finding and judgment for
AdlAAtAA ain - Nf1@-FNR NEAd
costs without relief.
City of indianapolis VS.. Albert RUSSELL;
short weight. Submitted to court. Evil
dence heard. Finding and judgment for
plaintiff against defendant for 81 and costs.
Indianapolis Union Railroad Company VS..
William II. Ryan ct al; injunction. Evil
dence concluded.
New Suits Filed.
David w. Coffin ct al. VS.. Anton Boeck-
ling ct al. Suit for foreclosure. Superior
Court.
Rosa May Elliott VS.. George Elliott; di-
Norce. Superior Court, Room /.
United States Building and Loan Institu-
ton vs.. Arthur Grover ct al; suit to fore
close. Superior Court. Room l
Mary Hart VS.. Henry Hart; divorce. Su-
perior Court, Room 3.
Noah Carter Us. Lemuel jay Carter; suit
on note. Superior Court, Room ?.
George A. Dickson ct al. VS.. John Berter-
mann ct al; suit on account, Superior
Court, Room 8.
Anna r. Hartman VS.. William Hartmann;
suit for divorce. Superior Court Room 2.
Lyman w. Curtis VS.. Richard French ct
al; suit on account. Superior Court,
Room 2.
Jesse c. Moore, administrators, VS.. the
CAPITAL Life Insurance Company; suit or
policy. Circuit Court.
All humors of the blood, from the small
pimple to the dreadful gcrOfulR sore. are