The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-17
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1881. State ex rel. vs. Harris. Ohio c. C.
Afnrmed upon the authority of Scott VS.:
Inc state ex rel, decided at this term or
court. Jordan, j.
1868. Winstandley VS.. Stone Mill Company.
.Ehis court must decide a cause upon the
issues presented by the record. 2. When
pleading is not in the record it will not
1865. City Railway Company VS. Citizens
otfeet-rallroad Company. Hamilton &. G.
Reversed. Howard, il The Citizens
legislation or consent of the city of Indian
apolis, cannot continue to exercise its
franchise after Jan. Is, 1901. 2. Where
statute provides for the consent of "A city
to the exercise of franchise of a street.
railway to its streets it implies that the
city may give or refuse such consent; ana
the consent may be with such limitations
and conditions as the city may deem con-
sistent with its own welfare and the well
fare of its citizens. 3. The contract between
the city of indianapolis and the City Rail
way Company. dated April "a 1898, for the
construction or street-rallroad system LOT
the former IS valid in so far as IT does not
interfere with the prior rights of the C1ti-
zens' Street-railroad Company, for the cars
of one company cannot without consent run
upon the rails of another company, nor may
the rails of one be so laid as to prevent
or needlessly impede the running another
ing a construction upon a contract to as
certain and give effect to the intention OF
the parties If it is lawful and can be done.
5. A valid contract cannot be annulled by
subsequent legislation.
1910. Waring VS.. Fletcher. Marion G. G.
Affirmed McCabe, il. A valid undertake
ing in attachment is strictly construed in
favor of the obligors 2. No action can be
sustained on an undertaking in attachment
in this State if final judgment is rendered
in favor of the plaintiff on the proceedings
in attachment. B. The provisions OF the
undertaking in attachment 90 not by I Ihelr
terms include a case where the proceedings
in attachment are wrongful and oppressive
in part, and cannot be construed in such
manner. 4. Such part of Section 6y0 Burns
r S. 1894 as applies to appeals taken from
a judgment for the recovery OF real prop
erty has no application to an appeal from a
judgment in a proceeding in attachments
or garniShment. 5. Where the erect OF
judgment is to release and discharge all IN
debtednesS garnsheed except sufficient TO
paw the Judgment rendered no execution or
writ is necessary to effect such release, ana
if the garnishee retains the excess OF me
amount of the judgment 1t is no tault OF the
judgment creditor.
1864. Krenzer VS.. p, c., c. & st: l..
Railway Company. Hamilton c. G. Petition
person is injured by the act OF another tne
injured person will have right OF acion
for damages even though he was not Tree
from fault If the person causing the injury
knew Of his condition and could with ordl-
nary care have avoided causing the INJURY,
but where the injured party co ntsriputes W
his injury and there is no WlllIulneSS on
the part of the wrongdoer there can be no
1926. Sizor VS.. City of Logansport Cass
c. g. Petition for rehearing overruled.
Appellate Court.
26S3 Rogers VS. City of Bloomington.
Orange c. G. Affirmed. Wiley, il. All rea7
sonable presumption in favor of the general
verdict will be ndulged by the court on APP
peal 2 A special verdict will be upheld Wnen
it is 50 antagonstic to the genera W y6enc
person knows of a dangerous place IN a sIoe-
walk it is negligence on her part to attempt
to pass over the same in the night time
without a light or in not taking due care
- 2eaS &c SamDbeii VS.. Nixon. Marion S. G.
nd lnoWa piVpn to With
PSI 2671 Daley VS.. Deinhart. Benton e. 9.
Motion to dismiss postponed until maj near
ing. 60
Room II. L. McMaster, Judge.
Henry Wickers VS.. Frank Page; dam
ages. Jury finds for plaintiff and assess ms
damages at 500.
Room 2James M. feathers. Judge.
The Red Clay Orchard Company VS.. Jas.
H. Smith. On trial by jury. 49,.
James S. Cruise VS. : Lena , and a fGr
Fitsch ct all foreclosure. f1T Patgrs dDr
guardian, for $4.090.99.
Tine indianapolis Saving and Investment
T Ire Finding lin N'i for psintiff. Judgment
against Charles Crosley for $9l9.3l. tlndlng
for cross-complaint, Adison l.. Roach, with
judgment against Charles Crosley Tor
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge
Charles T.. Stuyers VS.. Julia Stuyers; d.
vorce Dismissed by plaintiff. Judgment
John Wagner vs. Citizens street-railroad
Company; damages Jury out.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen Judge
Margaret f. Peelle VS.. The Provident In
surance Society ct al; on policy. Dismissed
and costs paid.
James Boyce VS.. T.. A. Kinsey & Co. ct
al; on note. Jury retires -,
State eX rel Rosa Ditlinger VS.. John VIII
son; bastardy. Submitted to court. Evil
dence heard.
New Suits Filled.
II. Lille Mackey VS.. Clarence Fl. Conner;
foreclosure. Superior Court, Room /.
Laurinda Whitehead VS.. Sophia w. Dftt-
man ct al; partition. Superior Court,
Room s.
Mae Waddy VS. Percy Waddy; divorce.
Superior Court Room 2.
John II. Stuckmeyer ct al. VS.. Daniel De
vass; mechanics lien. Superior Court,
Room 1.
Josie e. Williams VS.. City of Indanapo-
lis ct al; damages. Superior Court, Room 3
Indiana Bond Company VS.. William CARR
son ct al; Improvement lien. Superior
Court. Room l.