The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-04-28
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme Court.

1880. Illinois Central Railroad Company
VS.. Cheek. Marion c. C. Affirmed. Jordan,
il. A. complaint is sufficient when ii
states the issuable facts in a sufficiently
certain or definite manner so as to fully
inform the defendant of what is alleged
against him in order that he may be pre-
pared TO meet the charge by his defense.
2 When a complaint is in more than one
paragraph and the assignment of error Is
that the court erred in overrullng appel.
lant's demurrer 10. appellee's complaint
such assignment challenged the complaint
as an entiety and it must be bad as a whole
to render such assignment available. 8.
1t is the duty of q railroad company to
stop its passenger trains at proper and safe
places for the entry of passengers and also
they may enter the cars, and on failure TO
discharge such duty when Ii results in an
injury to an entering passenger. who Is free
from c~ontributory negligence the company
Is liable for the injury. 4. Where a person
attempts to enter a passenger car from a
place not so dangerous that a prudent per-
not have encountered the peril of attempt
ing to board the car she has the right to
rely on the promises or directions OF the
servants of the railroad company in charge
of the train chat they will assist her on
the car without injury, and assume that II
she follows their directions her entry will
not be attended with danger. D.. The en-
ployes of a railroad company. in control
OF its trains, represent the corporation and
are at least presumed 10 have such expert
ence and knowledge in their business as
VIZ i-''DA NANA ~ OpNhAS
passengers to safely enter or alight from
such trains. 6. Negligence is a mixed ques-
ton of law and fact and a court cannot
adjudge an act to be negligence as a mat
ter of law, unless Ii is such as all reason
able men would be likely to deduce an in
ference therefrom. II the influences are
doubtful the question then becomes one OF
fact for the decision of the jury under the
proper instructions from this court. 7. All
that was necessary in preparing a special
verdict to be submitted to the jury under
the act of 1895, was for the court to re-
quire that Ii should be so framed by means
of i-nterrogatories that the jury thereby
could find. under the evidence, all the ma
terial facts OF the case. 8. When the facts
in a special verdict are properly stated an
omission Of the formal conclusion will not
vitiate It.
Appellate Court.
2S31. Taggart VS., Kern. Grant S. c.. Az
frmed. Wiley, il. Section GOES. Burns r.
s.. 1894; is applicable TO the subject therein
only where the wife owns real estate in her
own name. 2. To state that q thing was
done or accomplished by threats, imposi-
tons and menaces.' is not stating substan-
tative facts, but mere conclusions. 3. Where
a husband and wife own real estate by en-
tireties and the wife stands by'and allows
a building to be erected thereon through
the contract of her husband she ratifes his
acts and is bound thereby.
1854 Bettman VS.. Shade. Allen c. c. At
frmed. Robinson, il. Where a receipt for
2. 1893. received of $50. being a
rental of one months rent until Sept. 2.
1873. In full or all claims from this date up
to Sept. 2. 1885," II is not a receipt in full OF
all claims prior to its date. nor is such re-
ceipt a contract. 2. 1T is for the court and
not the jury to say what effect certain writ
ten instruments should have and whether
they have been duly executed. 3. In con-
STRUNG a contract 1t is the duty of a court
to adopt that construction which will give
effect TO all its provisions IL ii can be done.
4. In constituting a lease the words should
be taken most strongly against the person
who uses them and where 1t may be CON
strued I'm different ways. that one should
be adopted that will sustain most of it's
provisions.
$3.50 City of Elwood VS.. Hand. Madison
s. c. Leave granted to amend assignment of
errors.
Superior Court.
Room 3-Vinson Carter. Judge.
Writ Yancey VS.. c.. c., c.. & st. L. Ry.
Co.: damages. On trial by jury.
Circuit Court.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Margaret e. Huff ct al. VS.. Catherine J.
Hammond ct al; to contest will of Robert
Roe. On trial by jury.
New Suits Filed.
William p. Atkinson VS.. Sarah Allen; suit
to set aside assignment of lien. Superior
Court, Room !.
Thomas J. East VS.. Citizens Street-rail-
road Company: damages. Superior Court.
Room :.
Hilton u. Brown, receiver, VS.. William II.
Schmidt. treasurer. Superior Court, Room 3.