The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-31
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1876. Hodges VS.. Standard Wheel Com
pany; Hancock G. G. Affirmed Jordan, J.
Il. When a servant performed certain
KIND OF work for his employer, but under
his employment he was liable to be assigned
to any common labor necessary to be done
about the factory in which he was working,
the employer is not liable for am injury TO
SUCH servant received while in the discharge
OF his duties and which is caused by the
negligence OF felloW-serVant, although the
felloW-servant was directed to perform his
duties by a superior officer and the injured
person was. performing his duties upon order
or such negligent fellow-servant; the latter
having no more authority to give directions
for the master than the servant injured. 2.
An agent of another, in the absence of au-
thority from the latter, cannot delegate his
powers to another. 3. In order to recover
under the employers liability act of 1898
(SubdtVlsion 2 Section u, for the negligence
OF an employee of the employer in causing
an injury, such person must be one who IS
authorized to give orders and directions to
otner employees, and thereby cause them to
1898 Frain VS.. Burgett. White c. c. Pc
titon for rehearing overruled. Jordan, j.
i. The inchoate interest of a wife in the
lands of her husband begins with his seizn
during coverture, and it attaches as an in
cldent to such seizin, and it cannot be de-
feated or Invested through any change or
conveyance made by him, unless his wife
joins therein; the wife acquires such interest
by virtue of her marital rights. 2 Where
husband is seized in fee in lands. at any time
curing marriage, and his title Is Invested by
the means of any incumbrance or convey
ance made by him in which his wife did
not join at his death under Section 249l
X. s. 1881 the widow is deemed as taking
her interest therein as purchaser for value
as marriage is the highest consideration
known to the law
1858. Round VS.. State of Indiana. Clark
G. c. Petition for rehearing overruled Per
Curiam.--l. Whenever any person accepts
the benefit of contract made by another as
his agent he is charged with every infirmity
that would affect the contract against the
agent as if the agent had been acting and
contracting for himself and in his own name
z "A no cd in r1o
that either party may file additional briefs
or to enable any party to ask for oral argu-
nent 3. Requests for time to file additional
briefs or for oral argument must be rea-
sonably made and the fact that the clerk of
this court may have expressed an opinion
as to when a case would or would not be
decided, or that the parties were negotiating
for compromise of the cause. Is no excuse
for failure to make such application before
the decision of the cause.
lS4lS. Peerless Stone Company VS. Tray
Monroe c. c. Petition for rehearing over
1S499. Davis vs. State of Indiana. Clark
Z. Z: Opinion modified and petition for re-
hearing overruled.
1858. Baldwin VS.. Boyce Delaware C. G.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
Superior Court.
Room IL. i. McMaster, Judge
Wilson Morrow, executor, VS.. Indianapolis
Brewing Company ct al; account. Finding
and judgment for plaintiff against defend
ant for 1898 and costs.
Room 2-James M. feathers, Judge.
The Red Clay Orchard Company VS. James
H. Smith. On trial by jury.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge
Lizzie Payne vs. Edmund Payne divorce
Continued to Dec. 81, 1885,
II. J. Milligan VS.. Fl. S. Parramore ct al
Dismissed and costs paid.
Michael Bamberger VS. City of Indianap-
oils; damages. Dismissed and costs paid
Ada Meyers VS.. George Meyers. Taken
under advisement.
New Suits Filed.
A. Kiefer Drug Company VS.. Henry II.
Duke ct al; to subject real estate to pay
ment of judgment. Superior Court, Room 2.
Mary j. Hunt VS.. William Dye ct al; fore
closure. Superior Court Room g.
Henry F. Cloud ct al VS. Eli F, Ritter;
suit to quiet title. Superior Court, Room 2
Samuel BernharGS VS.. Ella Bernhardt;
suit for divorce Circuit Court.
Joseph Dolby VS.. Corydon r. Sinner: me-
chanics lien. Superior Court Room 3.
Rochester Lamp Company VS.. Joseph
Wineman; suit on account. Superior Court,
Room /.
The Mutual Home and Savings. Associa-
ton VS.. James o. Parker ct al. suit to foi c
close mortgage. Superior Court Room 3.
Washington Howard VS.. Citizens Street
railroad Company; damages Superior
Court, Room 8.