The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-10
THE COURT RECORD.
SuDreme Court.

Supreme Court.
1903. Lilly VS.. City of indianapolis. Ma
riOn G. G. Reversed. Jordan, il. In order
that person may recover money from
another party he must do so on the
strength of his own title and not by any
weakness or infirmity that may exist in
the title or right of the person having pos
session of the same 2. Where an act OF
a common council is solely a legislative
act, a judicial search for the motive which
actuated the council in its enactment of
the ordinance cannot be instituted.
1886. Colt VS.. State of Indiana. Sullivan
c. G. Affirmed. McCabe, 1.-The verdict in
this case is dependent upon the legality
of the indeterminate sentence act, and is
affirmed upon the authority of Miller VS..
the State, decided at this term of court.
c. Reversed. Hackney, il. A city is liable
where it constructs its sewers in such
manner that they. will damage private
right to maintain public nuisance arises
by prescription and a continuing nuisance,
with continuously increasing injury, affords
continuing right of action.
1921. Marshall VS.. Seamen. Marion 5. g.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
1891. Barker VS.. Prizer. Elkhart c. G.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
Appellate Court.
PISS. L. e. & w. Railroad Company VS..
Juday. Madison G. G. Reversed. Wiley, j.
l. In deciding whether cause is removable
it is the duty of the court to look to both
the complaint and petition for removal. If
ii appears from the complaint that the
amount involved exceeds $1,000 and from
the petition that the controversy is be-
tween citizens of different States, the filing
Of such petition, accompanied by the proper
bond, Gusts the jurisdiction OF the state
court, and the cause should be removed.
2. Where the amount demanded is less than
$1,000 there is no jurisdiction In the Federal
Court. 3. Before answer plaintiff may
amend his complaint without leave of court
and whether such amendment is made for
the purpose of reducing the amount in
VOlVed so as to prevent removal OF the
cause to the Federal Court cannot be in
Quired into. 4. In approaching a railroad
crossing 1T is the duty of such person to
use care and caution equal to the apparent
danger. 5. In the operation OF hand cars
upon a railroad track the company is only
required to use such care and caution as
may. be required to protect the travelling
public as governing such cars no statutory
duties are prescribed. 6. To constitute neg
iiigence on the part Of a railroad company oa
stated which affirmatiyely show that the
accident complained of resulted from want
company ought to have taken, z. When one
person sees another in danger from which
he is unable to eXtricate himself with rea-
of such person so to act as not to increase
the danger and peril, and if he does act
so as to increase the danger with a, full
knowledge on his part it is negligence for
which he may be required to respond in
damages. s. In order for plaintiff to recover
the material averments In his complaint
uluSL DO supported by 6Vlu6uCe. y. Wn6I6
a person brings suit against railroad
company for damages caused by the fright
ening of a horse driven by plaintiff, when
he alleges that the servants of the de-
PENDANT knew the cause of the horses
fright the evidence must support such
averment. 10. WhereD the question asked
was whether or NOT you could have held
your horse, and controlled it," under GER
tain circumstances such question calls for
a conclusion of an opinion. H. Where evil
dence is material and bears upon material
points in favor of the party who introduces
1t the presumption is that it was infiuen-
tial, and that, if incompetent, harm was
done in letting it go to the jury.
1877. Huber VS.. Board of Commissioners.
Miami G. c. Affirmed. Comstock, J.-Where
person contracted with the board of
commissioners to reindex the deeds and
mortgage records of the county for cents
for each entry of deed or mortgage such
person can only be compensated cents for
each instrument reindeXed, and not for
each entry of the instrument
Superior Court.
Room 2-Lawson NJ Harvey, Judge.
Harvey n. Atkinson VS.. Isaac l.. George;
Richard Schneiderman VS. Big Four Rail-
way Company; damages. Dismissed at
plaintiffs cost
George H. Foote ct al. VS.. - Willis;
account. Judgment against defendant for
$511.4T and costs.
Room S-Vinson Carter, Judge.
The Indianapolis Brewing Company VS..
ment against defendant for SLABS and costs.
The indianapolis Brewing Company VS..
i5a Altman aoeount Find lin e and
costs.
Atlas Savings Association VS. Winburn F.
Winburn f. Conrad for sS9SS4 and costs.
Noah e. Naber ct, al. VS. Lawson H.
Smith ct al. damages On trial by court.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Anna Devere VS.. John HeffeImans estate.
Dismissed for want of prosecution. Judg
ment against claimant for costs.
Paynes Thompson vs. John. Hefferman's
estate. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
Judgment against claimant for costs.
William p. Herod VS.. Mary F. Sloan's
estate Submitted to court. Evidence heard
and finding for claimant. Judgment against
estate for $79 and costs.
Charles. Yoke VS.. Mariah Shelby's estate.
Dismissed, by claimant. Judgment against
G. NJ c. Willis VS.. Sarah Cations estate.
Stricken from docket Allowed on appear
Criminal Court.
John F. McCray, Judge.
The State of Indiana VS.. Thomas Basker-
vile and Fred Hackleman. Defendant Bas-
kerville on trial by jury.
New Suits Filled.
William p. Herod VS. Ernest Troy ct al;
suit in replevin: Superior Court. Room /.
Wilhelmina Fette VS.. Henry Migg9nbury
ct al; suit or note. Superior Court, Room 2.
Sarah j. Thurman VS.. James r. Thurman;
suit for divorce. Superior Court, Room 3.
David d. Mills, receiver VS.. David G.
Bryan; suit on note. Superior Court,
David d. Mills, receiver, VS.. John A.
Smith ct al; suit on note Superior Court,
Room l.
Mutual Home and Savings Association VS.
John II. Roth ct al; suit to foreclose mort
gage. Superior Court Room 2
The Indiana Bond Company VS.. Minnie @.
Burnett ct al; sprinkling lien. Superior
Court, Room 8.
Thomas Hayes ct al. VS.. Daniel M. O'Con-
nell; suit on note. Superior Court, Room l.
Clinton P. Gale VS.. Margaret G. Gale; di-
vorce. Superior Court Room 2
LorenZ Schmidt trustee, vs. Leonie VIII
helm ct al; suit to foreclose mortgage. Su-
perior Court, Room 8.
CIenesee Fruit Company VS.. w. Harry
Roberts ct al; suit on account. Circuit
Court.
Landau nuda,s AnnareI