The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-11-29
THE COURT c
Supreme Court.

1867. Whitcomb VS.. Standard Oil Com
pany. Porter c. c. Affirmed. Hadley, {.
il. In constituting a statute a court must
confine itself to approved rules OF construc-
ton and look towards the intent OF the
Legislature that gave the statute origin in
case there Is anything, obscure I'm It's pro-
visions. 2. The coemployes' liability act
does not relieve the employe from That eau
ton and care of himself required by the
common law. 8. Where a principle OF COM
mon law has been long established and
universally approved 1t cannot be subverted
by implication. 4. 1t does not constitute
negligence for a railroad company In the
its switch yards from other roads cars IN
general use differing In construction and
n most angro Sesdf1 nat w e % anaSs the the s SS {, ins
and coupling of such cars and the shifting
and setting them into trains Is one of the
risks assumed by the employe in undertake
ing the employ ment. 5. Ii Is not negligence
on the part of a railroad company to fail
to warn an inexperienced employe OF the
greater danger incident to coupling cars
that are supplied with or buffers
han cars having an ordinary device. 8. III
an employe fails to fully apprehend the ex-
tent Of peril from a known defect but vol
rendered hazardous by the defect he as
Sumes the risk.
l9l42- international. etc, Association VS..
Wall. Jay c. G. Reversed. Baker il
The statute governing building and loan
associations in this State does not contra
vene the constitutional provision. which pro-
IlUltO llO III VI oPt&AoA BlAN t+a
the passage Of special laws relating TO in
terest. 2. In an action by a building assoc
citation to foreclose a mortgage In the alb
sence of a plea Of null tiel corporation the
Incorporation of the plaintiff is admitted.
3. The presumption Is that a corporation
exercised its granted powers according TO
law. 4. Where the provisions OF a building
association loan Is assailed as usurious on
the ground that the loan was not offered In
open meeting. under such plea the burden
is on the person so alleging the illegality
TO nrOya that the loan was not OHereQ IN
open meeting. 5. The mere fact that a
premium to a building association Is payable
der the loan usurious and Illegal.
1885. Clinton VS.. State of Indiana. Mon
roe c. c. Affirmed: Jordan, a
with the felonious intent TO kill the declara-
ton of the defendant that he would kill the
person assaulted, coupled with a merciiess
sustain the finding of a felonious intent,
and the mere fact that the person injured
escaped with his life is not sufficient for
1861. L. E: & w; Railroad Company vs..
City of Alexandria Madison c. c
Affirmed; Bowling: ii Every pre-
of the regularity of the action of
a common council when they are attacked
in a collateral proceeding. 2. The adoption
regular meeting for the purpose of having
land adjoining the municipality annexed
cures any irregularity prior 10 the adoption
winch may nave OcCurTeu Dy reason ol tile
proceeding of the council having originated
at adjourned special sessions. 3. Proceed
ings for the annexation OF territory 20
nature. 4. The statute gives the common
council absolute power TO annex contiguous
plated territory, and the act is literally con-
strued by this court. 5. The Judgment of
the board of commissioners cannot be COL
laterally attacked except upon the ground Of
want Of jurisdiction. 8. The motives act
uating a city In annexing territory canaot
ha nnn1tfroG with an ANIMAL . ITn1aOZ tho
decision of the Circuit Court and the board
of commissioners, in annexing real estate
to a city. is ~fagrantly improper this court
1919. Williams VS.. Enterprise Company.
Henry G. C Transferred to Appel
posed corporation can be compelled 20
pay his subscription only upon the compile
ton of a de jure organization OF the contem-
plated corporation. 2. Article IL of Section
IL of the State constitution is not seif-opera-
tive. 5. The constitutionality Of an act not
being properly presented, Jurisdiction OF the
c. reversed. Jordan, il. The mere
fact that a complaint is somewhat
bad on denver when the theory is
completely out ed and the facts stated.
2. 4 reversal OF a Judgment, without any
court, operates to completely annul II, and
such a reversal, in It's effect. restores the
parties TO the position they occupied before
the rendition OF the judgment in the lower
court; and the title OF one who has become
a purchaser OF property under a judgment
before ii is reversed will be defeated or de-
stroyed by the reversal, provided he cannot
he held to be a good-faith purchaser. J.
Where a party entitled TO redeem from a
mortgage lien is not a party TO the decree
foreclosing such mortgage, the judgment. so
far as he is concerned, r. a mere nullity:
and the equity of redemption, which he may
have in the mortgaged premises. Is not at
fected thereby. and IN order to redeem he
Is only required to pay the mortgage debt
with the interest thereon.
1882. Sturgis vs.. State ex rel. Ramsey.
Jefferson C. c. Affirmed. Hadley. c. j.
This cause Is affirmed upon the authority