The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-13
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.


1908. Williams VS.. Atkinson. Newton c.
I. reversed. Bowling, il. BY failure TO
discuss the error assigned in ruling on a
motion in arrest of judgment, the objection
TO such ruling is waived ,. When the ac-
curacy of survey of land is in issue, it is
error to admit in evidence a former sur
Vey when II does not show that all the
parties interested We're present or had been
duly notified when the statute requires
their notice, presence or consent. 8. Where
record or survey shows the parties
present and consenting to survey and loca-
ton of corners" it does not import that
all the prOprtetorS of the lands 10 be al
fected by such survey We're present and con-
senting and when such record is TO be
used in evidence the names of the owners
of the adjoining lands as were present
should be set out, or 1t should be shown by
other evidence that they had been duly
notified, had consented in writing TO such
survey or were present and consenting to
it. Any such defect in the record is not
obviated by any presumption that the OFF,
Ger making the survey did his duty. Such
survey having been made under ] X. s, 1852,
p 469. 4. 1t is not error TO exclude evil
dence which proves nothing. s. When
record of a public survey Is Improperly in.
evidence it is error for the court to instruct
the jury so that it is authorized to find
facts from such record as admitted b. An
agreement between landowners that sur
vey shall be made does not justify the sur
Veyor in changing a corner or line lawfully
established by a previous survey. Z. IL is
state the law correctly s. Neither a notice
by the owner of lands that he Will cause
an official survey to be made, nor the con-
sent of such owner in writing or otherwise
that a survey must be made for the purpose
of establishing corners or lines operates as
q waiver or abandonment of any right such
owner may have under previous surveys.
1869. StoeTmer VS. Peoples Savings Bank.
Vanderburg S. c. Affirmed. Monks G. j.
To enforce a mechanics lien the action
must be commenced within one year from
the time of the filing of the notice i'm the
recorders office, or if credit be given within
one year from the expiration of such credit,
and if it is not commenced within such
mentioned time the lien is null and void
1S348. Copeland vs.. Town of Sheridan.
ruled
1858. Markley VS.. studebaker. Wells c.
G. Petition for rehearing overruled,
Appellate Court.
2S99 Hudson VS.. Wood. Jay c. c. Trans
ferred to S. c. Per curiam.-When one of
the judges of this court acted as trial judge
in the lower court, and the remaining four
judges are equally divided upon a question
presented, the cause will be certified to the
Supreme Court
2509 Estate of McConahey VS.. Foster.
Whitley c. G. Affirmed. Black, G. il. An
application for a new trial for cause dis
covered after the term at which the verdict
or decision was rendered, as provided by
Section 5I2, Burns's r. S. 1894, is applicable
in a proceeding upon a claim against q de-
cedent's estate. 2. The motion for new
trial must be for some specific cause as
provided by the statute.
1868 Shirts VS. Rocker. Marion c. c.
Affirmed. Robinson, il. Where a law
IITfn was QOlnB the SeDeTdl law business OF
a decedent in the absence of a contract to
the contrary, the presumption is that serv-
ices performed by a member of the firm
a lawyer were on behalf of the firm itself.
. Where person is a member of a law
firm, his legal services are presumed to be
in the firms behalf, and If he is acting in
his individual capacity the burden is on
him to show that fact
1897 Springfield, etc, Company VS..
Kitchener. Howard c. C. Certiorar
granted.
Superior Court.
Room FLAMES NJ. feathers, Judge.
The Red Clay Orchard Company VS..
James III. Smith. Jury instructed and re-
tire.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge
Harry l.. Laws ct al VS.. George r. Wy
song ct al; on account. Submitted to court;
evidence heard; finding for plaintiff and
judgment against defendants for $l,11227
and costs.
New Suits Filed.
Hattie May Hendrix VS.. Alexander Hen
dirk divorce. Superior Court, Room 3.
Plymouth Savings and Loan Association
No. VS.. William Johnson ct al; mortgage.
Superior Court. Room l.
Joseph f. Boswell VS.. Timothy O Reardon;
suit on note. Superior Court, Room 3.
Charles e. HOlenbeck VS.. the Mexican
count. Superior Court, Room 2