The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-09
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1924. Miller VS.. the State of Indiana. St.
Joseph c. G. Affirmed. McCabe, il. The
indeterminate sentence law of 1897 is not in
conflict with the State Constitution. 2. By
refusal after trial and judgment to furnish
the defendant with long-hand manuscript
of the evidence, he having made the proper
showing as required in criminal case, such
refusal would not affect the trial Of the
cause; and the. remedy in such case Is to
make application to this court for an order
requiring the Circuit Court to furnish the
transcript at the expense of the county.
3. The Judgment of the trial court will be
presumed to have been correct until that
presumption is overcome by showing in
1881. Shelton VS.. State of Indiana. Mont
gomery C. c. Affirmed. Howard i'll.
Where a person is charged with having
stolen q certain number of turkeys, the
personal property of Della Todd" the in
formation sufficiently shows the ownership
of the property. 2. Where a person goes
to trial. before a judge having at least col
orable authority to preside as judge, with
out Directing TO the Jurisdiction Of such
judge at the time of the trial, all questions
pertaining thereto are waved. 8. Under the
4. The verdict provided for in the indeter-
inmate sentence law of 1897 is no wise a
violation of the Constitution.
1880. French VS.. Cunningham. Marion
c. c. Affirmed. Monks, il Upon the
rule declared in CambeH VS.. state, 14S Ind,
527, the evidence is not in the record 2.
Where the complete performance of an at
torney's services has been rendered impos-
sble, or otherwise prevented by the client,
the attorney may recover on q QudnLufn
meruit for the service rendered by him.
3. If the compensation of the attorney,
agreed upon is contingent on the successful
result of the suit, the measure of dam
ages is not the contingent fee. but the rea-
sonable value of the services rendered. l..
When the person employed is doing the
work according to contract and is prevented
from completing the same by the other par
ty IN violation of the terms of the contract,
the person prevented from performing his
part of the contract can recover the reason
able value of the work. not exceeding the
contract price, on the quantum meruit, or
he may sue upon the contract for the breach
thereof and the measure of damages Is
the amount that will compensate him,
which will include the reasonable value of
his work g. In the absence of contract
fixing the amount of compensation an attor-
ney is entitled to recover what his services
are reasonably worth, and it makes no diff
ference as to this right whether the serv-
ices were successful or not, unless the at
torney's want OF success was caused by his
negligence or bad faith.
1888 Demaree VS.. Johnson. Johnson G. C..
Motion to dismiss appeal postponed until
final hearing Of cause.
Appellate Court.
224s ST. L., l. e. e. r. r. Company VS..
Ridge. Greene G. G.. Affirmed Black. j.
l. Where q railroad Is engaged in hauling
gravel and unloading 1t at certain place,
il is it's duty to keep It's track free from
gravel and other distractions such as will
render operating "a locomotive over SUCH
portion Of its track dangerous. 2. person