The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-24

ficers of the respective houses Of the Legis-
lature. which imparts absolute verify, and
is conclusive that it was duly enacted.
1891. Carroll VS.. Green. Martin c. c. Pc
tition for rehearing overTuled.
Appellate Court.
1892 Kalen VS. T. H. & I. r. R. Co. Vigo
S. G. Affirmed. Black, il. A complaint
in an action for personal injuries should
not proceed upon purpose TO make it good
as a complaint for either an injury through
negligence or q willful injury, or upon
purpose TO make IT good for an injury
caused both willfulIy and negligently, but
1t should proceed definitely upon one theory
or the other p The right to damages for
tOrtuous injury is not dependent upon it
having been inflicted purposely. 2. 1t is
against the policy of the law TO allow a re-
covery for injuries sustained by fright oc-
casioned by the negligence of another,
jury.
pany VS.. Aaron. Laporte c. c. Reversed
in part and affirmed in part. Robinson,
il. To permit dry grass and other COM
bustIbles 10 accumulate ana remain upon
railroad right of way by means of which
the spread of fire may be easily caused, is
negligence, and if fire originates in any
manner on the right of way in such in
hammable material and is neghgently per-
mitted to escape to adjoining property the
railway company will be liable for the loss.
2. A railway company has the right to burn
all cOmbUstibles, grass, ETC., from its right
of way and in doing so 1t is held to no
higher degre of care than a cautious and
prudent man should use in removing such
material from his own premises 3. Where
it is sought to hold a company liable for
damages caused by fire escaping from its
right of way there must be some facts or
circumstances from which the inference
can be drawn that the fire was permitted
to escape from the right of way. t. Where
there is no evidence to establish essen
tial element in a partys right to recover
a judgment should not be permitted to
stand.
223S Heller VS. Elwood Board of Trade.
Madison c. G. Affirmed. Henry, J.-When
a person subscribes an amount to be used
for the purpose of securing factory in
certain locality such subscription is writ
ten contract by which one engages to con-
purpose, and when it is delivered to the
person for whom it is intended and is acted
upon by him. by the performance OF the
conditions therein it becomes binding upon
the subscriber. tfn
1880. Cummings vs. Girton. Marion S. C.
Motion to dismiss overruled.
Superior Court.
Room John L. McMaster, Judge
Henry schnull VS.. Charles Hilton; ac-
count. Judgment by agreement against de-
PENDANT for S6322 and costs
Louise Teeter VS.. James Kelley ct al;
foreclosure. Finding for plaintiff and judg-
ment against defendant, James Kelley, for
1899 and costs. Herman Frey appointed re-
ceiver. Receiver qualities and files bond OF
$500.
Finding and judgment against defendant
for 81, $50 and costs.
Room 2-Lawson NJ. Harvey, Judge.
The Barnard Manufacturing Company VS..
The j. b. Allfree Company; contract. On
trial by jury.
Room S-vinson Carter, Judge.
Lydia A. sanderson VS.. Citizens Street
railroad Company; damages. ON trial by
jury.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
James Rounder and Ansel c. Staneart VS..
WILDER E. Beard ct al; mechanics lien.
John M Bailey withdraws appearance for
defendants
Jacob Christopher VS.. H. H. Combs; on
note. Defendant defaulted, Submitted to
court. Evidence heard. Finding and judg-
ment against defendant for costs.
]. S. Hall, assignee VS.. Hattie Bernard ct
al. Dismissed by agreement. Judgment
against plaintiff for. costs.
terson; injunction. Evidence concluded.
Argument had and taken under Amusement
New Suits Filed.
Samuel Heath VS. the Citizens Street.
railroad Company; damages. Superior
Court Room 2
Elizabeth Fair VS. David Fair; divorce.
Superior Court. Room l.
Milton K. Alexander VS.. Lizzie NJ. Alex
ander; divorce: Superior Court. Room 8.
vorce. Superior Court, Room 8.
John L. w. Martin VS.. Susie Martin d.
vorce. Superior Court, Room s.
Edith Van Every VS.. Michael T. Van EV-
cry; suit for divorce, Circuit Court.
Thomas c. Jay vs.. the Pittsburg, Cincin-
natl, Chicago q ST. Louis Railway Com
pany; damages. Superior Court, Room 3.
Nathan f. Dalton ct al VS.. Edward III.
Reutsch ct al; MECHANICS lien. Superior
Court Room 2. ~ 20 as.s ~.
Dora NJ. Becker vs. Charles A. Becker;
The WHITLEY Steel Company VS.. the
Bruner- Munger Manufacturing Company
ct. al; suit on account, Superior Court,