The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-06-29
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.


feet to every part thereof, without change
or rejection, provided an effect can be given
to it, not inconsistent with the general eff
feet of the whole will taken together ).
Where a person makes a devise or bequest
in one item of his will subsequent item
may lawfully provide that the property may
be held In trust by another for the benet-
ciary. 4. bequest or devise can be law
fully made subject to a trust for the benefit
of the donee.
1867 Owngs VS. Jones' Blackford c.. C.
Reversed. Jordan, j. Where person ex-
ecuted deeds of conveyance and put them in
the hands of a third party for delivery at
his first opportunity, which deeds were not
delivered until after the death of the grant
or, in an action by the heirs of the deceased
TO set aside the conveyance and for parti-
ton when the grantee and the person VINO
delivered the deeds were heirs and party de-
PENDANTS it is error for the trial court TO re-
fuse TO owner of the property under the
deeds to prove by the person who delivered
them the bonafides of the transaction.
1869 l., N. A. & G. Ry. VS.. Domke Cass
c. G. Affirmed McCabe, jim the manage
ment and control of a railroad a bridge car
penter is not fellow servant of a train dis
patcher
1885 Travellers Insurance Co. VS. School
Township. Pulaski c. c. Petition for re-
hearing overruled. Hackney, c. il. In
an action to review judgment the record
should be pleaded to advise the court of the
existence of the error or errors relied upon.
2. Where the suftciency of the complaint is
upon deeienees therein when eo observed by
it, although such deficiency has not been
| discussed by counsel.
1920 Hay VS.. Town of 1rVingtOn. Marion
S. c. Appeal dismissed.
1880 ~, H.: & /. r. r. Co, vs.. Sheeks.
Marion s. G. Submission set aside and serv-
Appellate Court.
1857. Norris VS.. Churchill Rush C. G..
Affirmed. Black, il, Where one of sew
eral joint debtors pays more than his share
OF the Indebtedness equity gives him right
of action, against those who have failed to
Fay, for contribution. 2. When there is an
entire debt owed equally by several, the
solvent debtors must share equally in any
burden thrown upon them by the insolvency
of part of their number, and such obliga-
ton is based upon an implied contract
which exists from the date of the relation
between the parties 81
25l7. Peninsular Co. VS.. Ellis. Steuben
G. c. Reversed. Comstock, il. An as
signee for the benefit of creditors is not a
purchaser for value against a defrauded
owner of property purchased before the as
signment by the assignor, and such an as
signment as against the seller, and except
as to bonafide purchasers for value, is a
conversion. 2. A purchase of goods by one
them is such fraud as will entitle the
vendor to avoid the sale. although there
were no fraudulent representations or false
pretenses and the seller has right of &C
ton for conversion.
1853: Center School Township VS.. State ex
Rel School City Ss Grant G G. Affirmed
authority of Township VS.. State ex rel. 40
N E. Rep. 961.
Z44o. haas VS.. CITY or Evansville. Wander
ruled. Per Curtain. After a cause has been
argued and decided Solely upon it's merits a
constitutional question cannot be raised
upon petition for rehearing for the pur-
pose of having the case transferred to the
Supreme Court.
Dismissed.
$3.50. State of Indiana VS. Buskirk Mont
gomery c. c. Petition for rehearing over
1929. Keller VS.. Gaskell De KaIb C. C.
Petition for rehearing overrued.
25S9. hatcher VS.. Clark. Clinton C. c.
transferred to Supreme Court
l. Superior Court.
Room 2-Lawson M. Harvey, Judge.
Caroline Oge VS.. Moses M. Martin ct al. {:
foreclosure. Judgment VS.. defendants Nick
erson for Sl34.2O and costs.
Robert b. Keith VS.. Anna L. Dye eft al. !;
note. Judgment VS.. defendants for $506. IS.
A. J. Van Deinse VS. James H. Smith ct
al; foreclosure. Judgment VS.. defendants
The following causes were dismissed for
want of prosecution costs VS.. plaintiff in
each case:
Millie Julian VS. J. c. Mag ct al: Max
Bank VS.. H. H Rowland; Lydia Drummee
vs., vs.. E Eohy "a Anderson; James X Bradley
Four Railway Company James Langrail
VS.. Elice Evans; Ida e, Bailey ct al VS..
f p T; Boiling lin ct al James Mckee vs..
dianapolis & Broad Ripple Rapid Transit
Company: C. F. Wishmier VS.. Terre Haute
6Ee et e e e. HA gend Ha ys 4 NJ
street-railroad Company; Charles l.. Diltz
VS.. George F. Kreitlien; Brown Shoe Com
ders VS.. Clay Whitley; John Devne VS.. Lii
liam E. Lane; George E. Keith VS. l.. d.
A Atn Mary 4. Barlow vs.. l.. NJ, A; & g.
& c. Railway: Garr-Scott Company VS..
Levi NJ. ,Darnell; Louisa Albright VS.. vii
Carter; H. NJ Talbot vs. Sarah A. Kinder !,
State Bank of Indiana VS.. James w. Wild
Ing (three gases; Bernard F. Mullen VS..
Kelly VS.. Daniel A: Chenowith; August
Norman vs.. Omer Brewer; Sarah " Tur-
ley vs. Albert Dixon; Joseph Carson VS..
William H Newly; James l.. Barnett VS.
John A. Thatcher: John F. Davis VS.. Lake
Erie & Western. Railway Company; John
pany; Dwight Fraser VS.. Edward Good
pPerle; Thompson. r. Bell; vs. BENJAMIN B.
Landers: Thomas J.. Young VS.. Ida p
Evans: Frank p. Norvell VS.. Winona As
Woods; j. D. Pierce VS.. Terre Haute Brew
ing Company; Henry A. Winn VS.. James
N. Powell; Caleb S. Perry VS.. Andrew j.
William F. Gansburg VS.. Charles A. Han
mabel; Mary. A.. Gilmore VS.; William M. ST
Peter NJ. Pursell VS.. E. H. Larne Ida B.
Bugbee VS.. John A. Lang; Samuel C. Ward
VS.. Masonic Mutual Benefit Associations
Provident Saving and Loan Company VS.
M. Lilly; Mutual Bond and Surety
Company VS. Ella Aldrich: Edward Lott VS.
William H. Potter e. r. Steward VS.. w. S.
Lockman James H. Winslow VS.. Central
Cycle Manufacturing. Company; Cora w.
Harry Brown VS.. Fulmer-Seioert Company:
Mary Suhr VS.. Harry Hoelkemeyer: Norris
Fellers VS. Citizens Street-railroad Com
W. II. Hubbard VS. Mary McCreary: w j.
Hubbard VS.. Herman Steiner; Mary Carr
VS.. John w. Rupp ct al. John r. Kening-
ton VS.. Nancy Reno; f. F.. Stewart VS.
w. H. Houston; Finay ct AL VS.. Leopold
Mayer Catherine McAree VS.. Owen Nc
Aree; Indiana Bond Company VS.. H. A.
Heidelberg: Susie Johnson VS. Jefferson
Johnson: Fred Fuerhing VS.. Howard York;
United States Building and Loan Associa-
ton VS.. Oliver p. Mcclellan; Fred Wegner
vs.. Citizens Street-railroad Company: II.
T. Noting VS. Anna L. Walker; H. T. Shir-
ley VS.. Emma Shirley: H. It. Noting VS..
Louis r. Heller; Charles x. Mathews VS..
Frank McAlister; Douglas Mitchell VS. Cit
liens Street-ralroad Company: Summit
Vile Brick Company VS.. Maurice Donnelly;
F. c. Lingenfelter VS.. Emily Bernloer: A
NJ. Cranch VS.. George w. Dowell; Lula Will
son VS.. Martin Wilson: Mary e Cemke VS.
ys. d. Schneiderman: ~Milard NJ. Hort VS.
George F. Hogue ]. Crouch at AL VS. p
c., c., e. st. l.. Railway: Viola Armstrong
VS.. A. X. Diltz; G. +. Bartal VS.. Horace
Sewage.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge
John Carbon VS.. the White River Sand
Company: on account and for a receiver
Submitted to court and evidence heard
Criminal tAourE
Joseph B. Healing, Special Judge