The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-10-07

| in its nature usurious. 2. The State may
| fix the terms on which a foreign corpora
tion may enter to do business, but IL a
| foreign corporation is permitted to enter the
State the validity of its contracts with cit
| liens Of this State must be determined by
| the rules that apply 10 the same contracts
| between citizens and domestic corporations.
| 3. The act of 1893 declaring that il shall be
unlawful for foreign corporation to do a
| building and loan business in this State un-
til ii shall have deposited bonds, etc, must
| be read prospectively and as not impairing
the obligation of existing contracts. 4. If a
contract is valid when executed and con-
templates the lapse of several years before
| all of its terms are carried out it must be
held to remain valid and enforceable to the
end, under the laws in force at the time
| OF its execution. no matter what changes
| the law has undergone in the lifetime of the
1886 Equitable, etc. Association vs. Peed.
Madison c. c. Reversed on authority of No.
| 1862 above shown. Baker, j.
1860 Huter VS.. Union Trust Company.
| Marion 5. c. Reversed Baker, il. The
| building and loan business is lawful in it
| ing and loan business becomes insolvent
and is in the hands of the court to be
wound up borrower is entitled to have his
| monthly payments on his certificates al
| lowed as a claim and to receive thereon his
| share of the residuum pro rata along with
| other investors on their investments.
| 1898 James VS.. Sidwell. Delaware c. c.
Affirmed. Baker, J.-Where a court ordered
a receiver of an insolvent building associa-
| ZION 10 settle WIFI us members as fOllOWS:
| amounts loaned them, together with per
cent. interest. less all amounts paid by them
| for premium. interest and fines reckoned
| by the rules for partial payments, and that
| all members, borrowers and nonborrowers
alike, receive pro rata distribution upon the
| amounts paid on stock and the Judgment is
| affirmed. 1888
| 1913. White VS. State of Indiana Tippe-
canoe .. c. Affirmed: Hadley. il It is
not error for the court to state to the jury
| self-evident facts, nor TO assume a fact
| true that has been conclusively proven. 2.
| 1t Is harmless to state in an instruction that
| a certain question is the controlling one. IT,
| upon the evidence. IL alone is fairly de-
batable. 3. 1t will be presumed that jury
| the courts instructions in it's usual ordi-
| nary sense. and that it was not applied in
any way harmful to the complaining party:
| 1917. Bird Transfer Company VS.. City OF
| Indianapolis. Marion s. c. Dismissed.
| Appellate Court.
| 2S00 Franklin Insurance Company VS..
Wolff Laporte s. G. Reversed. Robinson,
| il. When the insurer contracts with the
| insured and upon certain contingencies
| agrees to pay the loss to third person, a
MORTGAGE, the latter may maintain an &C
| ton such promise in his own name when
| he shows he is entitled to recover the full
amount OF insurance z A contract of in
surance is personal, and does not run with
| rnurrer - addressed to several separate
| paragraphs of answer, the answers must all
| stand or fall together. 4. The effect of a
4
| that the insurance company agrees, If mon
| ey becomes due the mortgageor under the
| contract, to pay 1T to the mortgage instead
! of paying it to the mortgageor himself.
1 and the mortgages interest is not protect
ed by the terms of the policy against any
| company of subsequent additional insurance
| against the insured Is good defense
tin nlS iiop Ia fire sne nocv
| protecting the mortgage against the acts
or default of any person other than him
self or agent, he can nave no better right TO
| recover on a loss than his mortgageor would
| have had. sf.tit
2751. Rowe VS. Raper. Marion c. C. Re
| versed. Comstock. c. 1.-THE father is liza
| BILE for the funeral expenses of his deceased
| minor child, and before claim for such
expenses can be enforced against the de-
| the father is unable to pay them.
3107. Garrigus VS.. Board of Commission
| ers Hamilton c. C. Motion to transfer to
| Supreme Court sustained.
| Superior Court.
| Room John L. McMaster, Judge.
Margaret Blume VS.. William H. Blume:
| divorce. Finding decree for plaintiff and
| against defendant for costs.
mechanics lien Finding for defendant;
| Judgment against plaintiff for costs.
Room flames NJ. Leathers Judge.
H c. Broadbeck ct al VS.. John w. Oliver;
| account. Jury instructed and retire.
Circuit Court.
| Henry Gay Allen, Judge.
| Marion Trust Company, guardian VS..
Louis Hasse Laura L. Behning and Edwin
F. "A. Behning. Submitted to court Evidence
heard. Finding for plaintiff for 1892 and or
! der against plaintiff to pay same. -.
| T. H. Ripley VS. H1I.ieber Company Sub
| mitted to court. Evidence heard
SohR MSrs , E ~ 1 Agpg Sr s s5 81 street
| tr Criminal Court.
Fremont Afford, Judge
1 r>.o To,n -.
| grand larceny. Defendant. withdrew plea of
| rot guilty and pleaded guilty to petit lar
eaEs of
The State of Indiana VS.. John Smith: as
| sault with intent to kill. Tried by jury.
Verdict of guilty of assault; fined So and
| costs.
The State of Indiana VS.. Frank Troskey
| and George Morgan: defendant Morgan
pleaded guilty 10; petit larceny Sentenced
! to the Indiana Reformat0ry for from one to
| sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for
| from one to three years.
New Suits Filed.
John Smith vs. w. d. Brown and the
People Publishing Company; libel Circuit
John C. Dunn VS. Henry A. Beck ct al. /:
to forecose mechanics lien. Superior Court,
James II. Smith ct al VS.. Thomas F..
Darmody; damages. Superior Court,
\ Room 2.
| John G. Dunn VS.. William A Van Buren,;
| to foreclose mechanics lien. Superior Court,
Room 1. ftInnr
Edward Mueller VS.. John c. Robinson: on
account. Superior Court. Room g
| Mamie Van Syckle We. George w. Van
SICKLE; divorce. Superior Court, Room 3.
| Edward III. Schrader VS.. Edward c. Cooper
| ct al: foreclosure of mortgage on note.
| Circuit Court.
William H. Ryan VS.. indianapolis Union
| Railway Company: damages. Circuit Court.
HOUSE ESTATE HEIRS.