The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-16
THE COURT RECORD.
Snnreme Conrf.

1926 Haney VS.. Farnsworthi De KaIb c.
c. Affirmed. Hackney. il. Questions de-
pending upon the weight and the sufficiency
of the evidence cannot be presented to this
court upon special bill OF exceptions as
provided by Sec. $780, r.. s., 1881 .. If the
question for decision is dependent on the eY-
idence, all the evidence should be in the
record. and if question is upon special find
ings exceptions to the conclusions of law
1886 Fritch VS.. Patterson. Martin c. c.
Affirmed. Jordan, il In an appeal from
public highway to the Circuit Court the fact
of public utility of the road is to be deter
mined by the court or jury trying the issue
from all the evidence relative thereto: such
facts and circumstances. 2. 1t is not essen
TALLY requisite to the proof of the disputed
question of public utility in such proceed
ings that it must be shown that the pro-
posed road will be used by the whole COM
munlty or large portion thereof.
1882. National Bank VS.. Smith. Clinton G..
c. Reversed. Howard. c. III In case the
husband and wife convey real estate of tllg
former In such a manner as to get the title
cut consideration. and such grantee has
knowledge that such conveyance is made
for the purpose of defeating creditors of
the husband, the law will impute fraud to
her and the deeds may be set aside 2 A
consideration of $3.50 is Inadequate for real
estate worth $4,000. although il IS subject to
the wires (who is the grantee) incohate in-
terest.
1Sio7. oRara VS.. Wabash Railroad Com
pany I1ppecanOe >. C.--MOtlOn 10 dismiss
postponed until final hearing.
Appellate Court.
1899. Justice VS.. Larry. Cass G. G. Re-
versed. Robinson, {. IA and We're
partners practiclng law. p during the part
nership was appointed judge OF the Circuit
court. Held. that the partnership was dis
solved at the moment B accepted the office
Of the Circuit Court and he Is not entitled
to part of the compensation Of A for SerV-
ices rendered by the latter after 3 accepted
said office, although the services were rem
dered in completing business undertaken by
the partnership.
2l36. Saint vs.. Board of Commissioners.
Henry. &. G. Affirmed. Henley. Under
Sec. 1928 r. s.. 1881, I'm order TO entitle a
county treasurer to the fees on delinquent
taxes it is necessary that the taxes be col
1ected by such officer during his term OF
office.
1881. State ex rel. Parks VS.. Hughes
Crawford G. G. Affirmed. Black. il The
right Of the indorsers of a promssory note
governed by the law merchant 60 require
payment may be waived by the terms of
the instrument. 3 In order for a person to
recover upon an official bond given by "a
county officer IL is necessary that such rela-
tor show an injury, TO himself caused by Il
breach OF this bond or official duties of the
1895. Chicago & Southeastern Railway
Company VS.. Caulkline. Hamilton c. c.
Reversed on confession of errors.
Superior Court.
Room John H. McMaster. Judge.
AnnabeIle Furgison VS.. the T. H. & r.
Railroad Company. On trial by jury.
Room 2-Iawson NJ Harvey. Judge.
George f. Hiatt. administrators. VS.. p, c.,
G. st. l. Railroad Company; damages.
Jennie HumphrIes VS.. John W. Scar bond