The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-21
THE COURT RECORD
Snnreme Court.

1887. Schneck VS.. City of Jeffersonville.
Clark. c. c. Affirmed Jordan, il. The
Legislature has the power to impose the
expense or public Improvement upon
particular locality which will receive ben
efits derived therefrom. 2. In locating a
county seat the legislature in it's discretion
may authorize the burden of the expense
incident to such location to be laid upon the
property of the particular district composed
of the territory within the limits of such
municipal corporation by providing for the
payment thereof by taxes levied upon all
the property in such district subject to tax
alton. 8. A city serves but as an agency in
the hand of the Legislature to carry out its
will in regard to local governmental con-
Germs 4. The Legislature has complete pow
er and control over municipal corporations,
subject to the restrictions of the federal or
state Constitution, and may authorize them
to contract debts and to issue and sell ne
Sotiable bonds and other evidences of such
Indebtedness 5. The Legislature may ratify
and make valid an act of city where it
has exceeded its power, when such au-
thority might have been originally conferred
upon and exercised by the city. 6. In the
absence of constitutional restrictions, and
where vested rights have not interviewed the
Legislature has the power to enact legisla-
ton legaliZing acts of a city where it might
have originally given the city the authority
to legally perform its acts. Z. Where city
in 1876 incurred an indebtedness and exc
cuted negotiable bonds therefor, and where
subsequently in 1896 the city, by its Common
Council, passed ordinance to refund the
Indebtedness at lower rate OF interest. UNI
der the provisions of the act of 1895 (acts
1898, j. SD. and where, by a subsequent act
of the Legislature (acts 1891 approved March
y the acts of the city were attempted to be
legalized. such latter act gives effect to the
will of the city and legalizes its acts. s. A
curative act relates back and affects the
original transaction SO that as between the
parties their rights are considered as aris-
ing at the time of the original act or trans
action and not from the time OF the ratifica-
ton.
1880. NcFarlan Co. VS.. Potter. Rush c.
c. Reversed. McCabe, il. Where an en-
ploye operates a defective machine under Il
promise from the employer that IL will be
repaired as soon as the job on which he
is engaged is completed but before the COM
pletion of the work he is injured by reason
of the defective machinery, he cannot re-
cover from his employer for the injury thus
received in the absence OF a specified time
at which the repairs are TO be made. 2. A
servant who works with tools, machinery or
appliances so defective as TO augment the
danger of the service with full knowledge
of such defect. is held thereby to implicitly
agree that ne will run the risk of danger or
that he implicitly agrees TO continue in the
service at his own risk Of injury to himself
from such augmented danger except where
he continues in the service under a promise
from the master TO remedy the defect within
a certain reasonable time.
1891 White VS.. Fatout. Marion S. G. Ger
tiorari granted.
1875 Meyers vs.. Meyer. Porter, c. G, Pc
tition to reinstate appeal oVerfuled ana ledNe
20 withdraw record granted
1925 Consolidated Stone Company vs..
William. Lawrence c. Q. Transferred TO
Appellate Court.
1901. Green VS.. Eden. Marion >. =. trans
ferred to Appellate Court.
Appellate Court.
1924 City of Huntington VS. Burke. Wa
bash c. G. Affirmed. Comstock, il. A
complaint charging the defendant with an
act Injurious 10 the plaintiff, with general
allegation Of the negligence in the performer
of the act is sufficient 10 Withstand a de-
murrer to the complaint for want of sufii-