The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-27
THE COURT RECORD.
Appellate Court.
EVIDENCE-BILL OF EXCEPTIO


EVIDENCE-BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
RECORD.
217S. Jefferson c. c. Baltimore & Ohio
Southwestern Railway Company VS. Nc
Cartney Affirmed Henley, J.-Where the
record fails to show when the original long
hand manuscript of the evidence certified
up as a part of the transcript was filed, or
affirmatively shows that it never was filed
in the clerks office until it was filed as a
part of the bill of exceptions, the evidence
is not before the court and questions re-
lating to it will not be considered.
APPELLATE COURT-JURISDICTI
EQUITABLE RELIEF.
2O47. Sullivan c. C. Richards VS.. Reeves
Wiley, c. il. An appeal from a judgment
foreclosing an equitable lien upon land for
the amount of certain sums or money d.
rected to be paid by the grantee of land to
the grandchildren of the grantor and eX-
pressed in the deed as a part of the con-
sideration for such land lies only to the
is asked and granted in addition to money
Judgment, the jurisdiction of the appeal is
in the Supreme Court.
PROMISE TO REPAIR - LANDLORD
AND TENANT.
17S5 Allen S. c. TAYLOR VS. Lehman. Re
hearing denied. Robinson, il. No dam
ages can be recovered by a tenant for in
jury to his goods caused by the failure of
his landlord to Keep promise 70 repair par
to support it, 2. Conversations between
parties which are claimed by one party to
have constituted a contract may properly
be construed with reference to the SubSe-
quent conduct of such parties.
SEWERS ASSESSMENT-DE-
FENSES.
22O2 Marion S. c. Byram ct al VS.. Foley;
Affirmed Wiley, c. il. Where a small
collateral sewer is made to extend off from
a local sewer by order of the Board OF
Public Works of Indianapolis, acting under
authority of Sections 50, SO and 81 or the
1l,1 IN p L
abIttfng upon such collateral drain may
properly be assessed for the construction OF
the sewer 2. The fact that such collateral
sewer extended only down an alley In the
rear of the property does not relieve II from
assessment as abutting property. 3. Prop
erty which has paid an assessment Tor a
local sewer in the street in front of it may
be assessed to build another in the alley
back of it if the construction of such other
sewer becomes necessary A. Inc puohc
authorities have power to decide when an
additional sewer adjoining any particular
piece of property is necessary. D. After the
work has been done and the assessments
made il is TOO late to defend on the ground
that the Improvement did not benefit the
property assessed A remonstrance should
have been filed before the work began
LIFE. URANCE-SPECIAL VERDICT
PLEADING.
o221 Monroe c. c. Pacific Mutual Life
Insurance Company vs.. Albert {. Turner.
Reversed Black. il. An allegation that
plaintiff has fully complied with his con-
by said PLAINTIFF is sufficient compliance
with Section $40. r. S., 1881, to make the
complaint sufficient in that respect after
verdict 2 Where the special verdict in an
action on a policy Of life insurance fails to
show affirmaliveIy that the policy was in
force when the loss occurred 1t will not
support a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
3. Merely stating that the policy was is
sued on a certain date without giving it's
time to run and that the accident causing
death occurred on another day some months
later does not show that the policy was
in force.
PRACTICE-WAIVE FIND
INGS.
22OO Madison c. c. North British
Mutual Insurance Company VS.. Koontz.
Affirmed. Wiley. c. il. An exception TO
the conclusions of law stated by the court
upon a special finding of facts is an ad-
mission for the purpose of the exception
that the facts are fully and correctly found
and valves a prior motion 10 correct the
findings. ,. After the court has stated IT'S
conclusions of law and rendered judgment,
il is too late to present motion To amend
and supply defects in the special findings.
8 Errors assigned but not argued are
waived L. If some evidence supports the
verdict in every material point, the ludg-
ment will not be reversed because of the
weight of conflicting evidence.
PRACTICE-WAIV ER-DOUBLE PLEA.
2lS9. Montgomery c. c. Shaw ct al. vs..