The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-22
THE COURT RECORD.
Suprenae Court.

THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.
1914. Wolf VS.. Big Creek Stone Company
Monroe c. c. Affirmed Howard, il If
an employe has an equal, if not better
opportunity. of knowing Of the defective
his employers. the latter will not be liable
for damages caused by the breaking of said
owned and operated a derrick in lifting
stone from quarry, sold 1t to other par
ties and assisted in adjusting the same
knowing that it was defective and was
thereby killed bv reason Of it's defective
ness, the owner is not liable for the death;
especially when the decedent had turned
aside from his proper duties to which he
had been assigned
1850. Hill vs. Swihart. Fulton G. c. At
fiLrmed Jordan, il. The special al, finding iIl
with reasonable certainty for determination
in this court. The certificate of purchase
at a sheriff's sale will not operate to pass
title unless a deed is issued thereon. B.
Where jury is not harmed by the judg-
ment of the trial court the judgment will
10000 Cooper VS.. Shaw. Shelby c. c. At
tirmed. Monks il. When the line or a.
ditch, established by the board of commits
sioners, is changed on the lands OF any one
or more persons, by agreement OF the coun-
ty surveyor, those owning land on the line
of said ditch above where the change was
made cannot successfully enjoin the con-
tractor for the ditch from prosecuting his
work thereon, unless the change WILL IN
their lands. If the drainage furnished will
be as good as if in strict compliance With
the specifications on the established line,
they will have standing in a court of
equity. 2. If the county auditor violates
the provision of the statute by selling an
allotment on the ditch 1efOre the section
Immediately below is completed only those
persons whose allotments were so sold have
any right to object thereto. as no person
can bring any question before the court
unless it affects his rights.
1919. state of Indiana VS.. Downs John-
son c. G. Reversed. Hackney, il Where
an indictment charges the defendant with
hiring the prosecuting witness to cast his
ballot for a certain ticket it is sufficient
that the name of the party for Which his
vote is bought be set out in the indictment,
without charging that at the election there
was such ticket before the voters of the
precinct for their suffrage. 2 Where an
indictment charges the defendant with CIV
ing or offering to give two dollars to the
ticket, the Indictment is sufficient without
charging that the money was a thing of
value.
1920. Willard VS. Albertson. Lawrence
c. c. Certiorari granted.
1895. Mickey VS.. City of Upton. Upton
c. c. Reversed on confession of errors.
Appellate Court.
225S Monds VS.. Central Glass Company.
Madison S. G. Affirmed. Comstock, il.
Those dealing with a receiver are bound
to know that he possesses limited powers
and is constantly subject to the orders of
the court which created him. They are also
charged with knowledge of the fact that he
can make no contract effectual against the
trust which was not first authorized or sub
sequently ratified by the court 2. The law
invests the trial court with the discretion
whether or not to allow the price charged
a receiver for material to carry on the
business of his trust for period of ten
months without an order from court direct
ing him to make such purchase.
229S. State of Indiana VS.. Smith. Greene
c. G. Reversed. Robinson, J.-Where an
indictment charges persons with having
been unmarried, and that they did 'unlaw
m Nv live nd n q m a
wife, the words las man and wife give
to the word cohabit a meaning equivalent
to that conveyed by the words Tin state
of fornication."
ISL. Frog and Switch Company VS..
Boyle. Marion S. G. Affirmed. Henley, j.
1. Without the evidence being in the rec
ord, no question arising out of motion
for new trial can be considered 2. De-
fective averments in a complaint are cured
by verdict and a complaint will not be held
bad when attached for the first time in this
court. unless a material allegation is en-
tirely omitted therefrom.
2240 Campbell VS.. Galloway. Wells c. c.
Transferred to Supreme Court
Superior Court.
Room John L. McMaster, Judge.
Joshua W. Moore VS.. Thomas Gray: me-
chanic's lien. Dismissed for want of prose-
cution; judgment against plaintiff for costs.
Joseph Talbert, by his guardian, VS.. Mary
E. Okey. Judgment in rote against de-
PENDANT for $262.35.
Room 2-Lawson M. Harvey, Judge.
DGDOTan T.. A.
al; on note. Judgment against defendant
for SOL SO and costs.
Cora Johnson VS.. Marie Rhodius; dam
ages. Judgment on verdict against defend
Thomas d. Cantwell VS.. John c. foley ct
al; restraining order. Dismissed and costs
paid.
George J. Schickentanz VS.. John Kratz;
on note. Dismissed and costs paid.
Room S-Vinson Carter Judge.
Gustave Roseburg VS.. W. ]. Hubbard ct
Walter j. Hubbard for $50 and costs.
John II. Vajen VS.. Fred Hetz ct al; on
note. Dismissed by plaintiff; Judgment
against plaintiff for coses.
Lydia A. Sanderson VS.. City Street-rail-
road Company; damages. On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen. Judge.
Helen NJ. Van Dyke VS.. Jacob Williams $
estate. Claim allowed by administrator in
the sum of 1888 and costs against estate.
George Q. Bruce admitted to the bar on
motion of Attorney Thad S. Rollins
Ktngan & Co. Qimited) VS.. the Indian
apOliS Water Company; suit to quiet title.
Argument concluded and taken under adj
'''o'' New Suits Filed.
John Medert VS. the New Era Iron Works
Company ct al; suit to foreclose lien. Su-
perior Court, Room g.
Margaret Bruce VS. Eva Shingler ct al
suit to foreclose mortgage. Superior Court,
John NJ Graham VS. Minnie Graham di-
Vorce. Superior Court, Room /.
Holland Decorating Company ct AL VS..
James +. Myers; suit on contract. Superior
Court, Room 3.
Company ct al. damages. Circuit Court.
William H. Ballard VS.. Bertha Esther Bal
lard; suit for partition. Circuit Court.
Star Saving and Loan Association VS..
Theodore G. Saylor ct al; suit TO foreclose
mortgage. Superior Court Room 2.
Jennie r. O'Haver VS.. William V. OHav-
er: divorce. Superior Court, Room g
Charles A. Reichert VS.. William H
Schmidt ct al; injunction Superior Court
Room g.
Lawrenceburg, Roller Mills Company VS.
Horace e. Kinney; damages superior
Court, Room /.
Star Saving and Loan Association VS.
Clinton T. Barrett ct al; suit to foreclose
mortgage. Superior Court, Room l.
James F. Favors VS.. Henry G. Adams
| damages. Superior Court, Room 3.