The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-05-21
THE COURT RECORD.
AnneIIate Conrt.


1885, Masonic Union Life Insurance Com
pany VS.. Brockman. Johnson c. c. Re-
versed. Wiley, il. Where the evidence is
conflicting this court will not reverse the
judgment of the lower court on the evil
dence alone. 2 An offer to prove a fact or
facts by 'other questions, which 'other
questions are never asked, is not review
able in an appellate tribunal. 8. Where error
is predicted upon the exclusion of evidence,
the only way TO present it is to ask the
question tending to produce such evidence
and let the court determine it's competency.
T. When litigant offers to prove a fact or
facts in answer to question asked of a
witness, and "other questions" which are
never asked, there is no error in refusing
the offer if the offer embraces more and
is of wider range than the question asked.
5. 1t is not error to refuse to allow a ques-
ton answered when the facts offered to
issue g. When corporation attempts to
prove it's rules which are in it's constitution
the best evidence is the constitution itself.
z: Where testimony is excluded the error,
If any, can only be made available by ask
ing a pertinent question of the witness, and
II objection is made, stating to the court
give in answer to the question proposed, and
if an objection is made and sustained an
surance policy is issued upon the life of one
person for the benefit of another, and such
beneficiary is named in the policy, it be-
comes the property of such beneficiary from
the date it goes into force. 8. An application
for life insurance is the contract between
the parties and all that is said prior to the
time the application is made is merged in
the written application itself and oral testi-
mony is not admissible to explain it where
the language used therein is clear and free
from ambiguity TO- A warranty is an en-
gagement or understanding forming a part
of transaction. 1t is an absolute under
standing or liability on the part of the war
rantor, and such a contract is void unless
1t is strictly and literally performed il. A
guarantee is collateral promise to answer
for the debt, default or miscarriage of an
other II Where a contract is in writing
plain and unequivocal, 1t is the duty of the
trlal court to construe 1t and instruct the
jury just what it means. Is. The following
instruction in a suit on an insurance policy
is erroneous as tending to mislead the jury,
the word warranty means more than an
agreement, 1t means a guarantee. Warran-
ties are not favored in law and nothing can
be construed on warranty except that
which was and is plainly and unequivocally
declared to be such by the parties
25l3. Vorts vs.. Shotts. Montgomery c. c.
Reversed. Henley, il. In order to release
surety on a promissory note by reason of
an extension of the time of payment the
extension must be for definite period for
valuable consideration, without the con-
sent of the surety and the holder Of the
note must have knowledge of the fact that
the person seeking the release for such
cause is surety. 2. An instruction which
undertakes to set out the material facts
necessary to be proven in order to maintain
an action or defense must be correct and
complete.
1892. Haskell VS.. Gallagher Jay c. c. Az
firmed. Black, IA mechanics or material
labor done and fuel furnished in drilling an
Oil we'll
Superior Court.
Room 2-Lawson NJ. Harvey, Judge.
Emily A. league VS.. Citizens Street-rail-
road Company; damages. On trial by jury
alke-Krauss Company VS.. Mary J.
Rounds; mechanics lien. Dismissed and
costs paid
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Calvin N. Wilson vs. Zeph Wilson; parti-
ton. Finding for plaintiff. William David,
William Whitson and Jude Williamson ap-
pointed commissioners to make partition.
Chopper ct AL VS.. Mutual Home and Saw
ingS Association damages. Jury instructed
to find for defendant.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge
Marie Schubert VS.. p. R. McNaught ct
al; on appeal bond. Submitted to court.
Evidence heard and taken under advise
ment.
Murtagh o'Leary VS. James. Renihan ct
al. Jury return verdict for defendants.
Thomas Ealy VS.. Newton Woods; appealed
from j. p. Dismissed and costs paid
Criminal Court.
John F. McCray, Judge
State of Indiana VS.. Alva G.. Hartzog: in
corrigible. Evidence heard and taken under
Amusement.
State of Indiana VS.. Arnold Hildebrand;
assault, and battery. Trial by court.
State of Indiana VS.. William Hoffman;
burglary. Defendant discharged until fur
Their order of court.
New Suits Filled.
German Fire Insurance Company of Indi-
ana VS.. John P Lyendecker ct al; suit to
foreclose mortgage. Superior Court, Room l.
Indiana Bond Company VS.. Samuel Rob-
bins ct al; improvement lien. Superior
Court, Room2
complaint for receiver. Superior Court,
Room l.