The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-13
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1870 Reid VS.. Reid Lawrence G. G.
Affirmed Hackney, il. In order TO pre-
must contain all the pleadings in the lower
court 2. The, pleadings constitute the
foundation upon which the superstructure
1905. State Board of Tax Commissioners
VS.. Holiday. Marion c. c. Affirmed. Nc
Cabe, il. The power OF taxation is a
the legislative department or the govern
ment g. The power of the Legislature
over the subject of taxation ADMITS no nm 4.
itation except where specially imposed by
the Constitution itself. 3.--Secuon l or Ar
ticle 10 of the State Constitution does not
confer the power of taxation. as that power
is sovereign 1t is a legislative power to
select subjects for taxation This conSti-
tutional provision imposes the duty ana
limitation upon the Legislature OF proVld-
ing by law regulations for a Just ivalnna-
ton of all property for taxation: The
statute must not only PROVIDE what prop
erty shall be taxed, but It must provide
methods for the valuation of such property,
and clothe some person, ofncer or tribunal
with power and authority 10 assess such
such provisions it will be insufficient to
subject such property to taxation o. me
constitutional provision Tor taXaton Is not
self-eXecuting, but requires appropriate
legislation to carry 1T into erect. D. Inc
Legislature did not intend to make life in
surance policies subjects OF taxation; ana
manner of assessing or valuing such pol
icies for taxation, if they do fall within the
literal words OF the TAX law Oh loJls anu
the act of the State Board of Tax Commits
soners in providing regula tons for and or
dering them to be assessed for taxation
was without authority of law and void.
1850. Dudley vs. Pigg Sullivan C. c.
Appellants petition for rehearing:-
1903. Williams VS.. Atkinson. Newton c.
G. Certiorari granted.
Appellate Court.
234O Citizens National Bank VS.. Third
National Bank. Dearborn G. c. Affirmed.
Comstock il. Where a hank is employed
as a collecting agent for the purpose of
bank to present the draft for payment on
the day Of receipt or the next day after.
2. An indorsee of a draft has the right
to presume that provision will be made for
its payment. 8. Usage can only regulate
the manner of the performance of required
acts; 1t cannot excuse nonperformances.
custom to exempt him from liability on ac-
count of his negligence. 8. Where, al
though the drawer, by reason as OF ms MS want
mains liable on his Endorsement without
presertment, demand or notice, the in
the collecting agent is liable for refusing to
present the draft for acceptance, etc,
when by his neglect he has deprived the
indorsee. of his relief against his indorser
vance that because the drawer of a draft
may have in fact been insolvent that there
fore the indorsee, from pursuit of his rights
of recourse will avail if the collecting
agent fails to give his principal and in
dorsee the benefit OF Such chOlce.
2iS7. c.. c., G. & st. L. Railway Company
VS.. Board of Commissioners. Marion C. c.
Reversed. Robinson, ii. A consolidated
corporation succeeds to the rights of its
constituent corporations and it becomes IL
able for the debts and obligations of the
original companies. 2. Liberal rules of
pleading prevail in the Commissioners
Court, and when there is enough alleged
to inform the board of the nature of the
claim urged by the claimant. and it is suf-
ficient TO bar another claim for the same
thing, although 1t does not aver all the
necessary facts to be proved, II will be suf-
ficient. 3. Under Section 1913, r. S., 1881,
II is the duty of the Board of Commission
ers to refund to the payee any taxes
wrongfully assessed, and such payer is en-
reversed upon authority of Kuntz VS.. stump
ton. III Ind, l.
1852. METROPOLITAN Life Insurance Com
pany VS. Mccormick. Marion s. c. Re-
versed. Wiley. il In an action to re-
cover premiums paid upon an insurance
policy the complainant must show a return