The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-04-27
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1S549 Lowry VS.. Downe. Howard c. c.
Affirmed. Jordan, il Where the special
finding of the court atfirmatively discloses
that the judgment was rendered upon a GER
tain paragraph of complaint the overruling
of a demurrer to another paragraph is not
assallable error 2. A parol agreement of d
Vender to eXtlnguish certain liens against
real estate to be conveyed becomes part of
the contract of conveyance, although not
and where the purchaser is compelled to
pay such liens, he may recover in an ac-
ton to enforce the vendors lien upon prop
erty by him conveyed as a consideration for
Grafton in a deed is stated in general terms
the real consideration may be shown by
either party for any purpose, by parol evil
dence, except to defeat the operation of the
deed as valid and effective grant. and it
may be shown by such evidence that the
grantee verbally agreed as a part of the
consideration to pay an incumbrance exist
ing on the real estate conveyed.
ls4OS. Trust Company of Pennsylyania VS..
il Delivery is an essential part of the
execution of deed of conveyance. 2 The
fact that deed is made prior to the making
of will does not defeat considering the in
struments together when the provisions of
the will are essential to complete the con-
session of the deed of conveyance until his
death he may prescribe by will the condi-
lions upon which the title to the land de-
scribed in the deed will pass, which may be
by charging the land with a legacy of an
other heir. and when such deed is delivered
after death of grantor it is taken upon the
terms provided in the will. 4. To entitle
the husband of a deceased wife TO the whole
of her estate 1t is incumbent upon him to
show that ne q ooS whole OF her Pfoperty does
in favor OF testacy, but are III favor OF in
testacy.
1867: Mason vs.. The calsume91t Canal ANA
ard, C. il. This case is affirmed upon the
authority of Kean VS.. Roby, 145 Ind, 22l. 2.
AS to adverse possession there can be no alb
reference
every kind of real estate; what might be
sufficient to show adverse possession to one
kind of real estate might be quite in appli-
kind.
27S7. Hoch VS.. the State. Pulaski c. c..
1916, Burns's r. S. 1894, bill of exceptions
not filed within sixty days after the rendi-
2 A fine of $25 will not be considered excess
sive when the punishment for the offense
may be $500. together with jail sentence of
three months
2446 Fox VS. Cox Parke c. c. Affirmed
Robinson. {. il The extent of wit
ness's knowledge before being permitted to
testify to value is within the discretion
of the trial court. and ii is only when there
is a total lack of such knowledge or there
appellate tribunal will interfere. >, The
extent CT a witnCss'S knowledge of the
subject matter about which he testiies as
to values goes TO the weight of his testi-
mony and not to his competency. 3. A re-
cept that has no elements of contract in
it may be explained or contradicted by parol
evidence 4. In an action TO recover prop
erty, what was at the time of the sale
thereof to one of the parties is competent
evidence as a part of the res gestae
229l Fhares VS. Lake Shore & Michigan
Southern Railway Company. Elkhart c. G.
Affirmed. Black, J.--Where a person was
employed on a railroad as an extra brake
working i'm that capacity and thereafter the
company upon settlement of its liability for
the injury agreed TO retain such person in
its employ as Il brakeman, such contract to
re-employ him Is construed by considering
the nature of his previous employment, and
looking TO the manner in which the parties
treated the contract and acted upon IT. and
by such person Afterwards serving as an
extra ana accepting compensation as such.