The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-12-15
THE COURT O
COURT.

l6WD walters VS.. NdTu. NODIe I. u.
Affirmed. Monks, il. Where an owner
Of laSd and the holder of a mortgage
thereon negotiated for a sale Of such Ian
to a third person under an agreement en-
tered into by the three. by which the pur-
chaser was to pay the agreed price in GER
tain payments. which it was agreed should
be applied first to the discharge of unpaid
and accruing interest on the mortgage,
second to paying the landowner a certain
sum for his equity of redemption, and third
to paying the principle sum due on the
mortgage, the lien of the mortgage for the
principal sum secured thereby was post
poned by such contract in favor of the lien
of the landowner for the purchase price of
his interest. 2. Where such purchaser
made default in making the agreed pay
ments and conveyed the land to the mort
foreclose his equitable lien for purchase
money, subject to the mortgagee's claim
for interest. but superior to the principal
mortgage debt.
1sO57. Colip VS.. State. Hamilton c. c.. AZ
firmed. Bowling. il. A farm han who,
during the temporary absence of his en-
ployer, takes wheat or other farm products
from his employers granary, to which he
has access, and sells II, is guilty of lar
ceny. 2. The statute defining embezzle-
ment (Section 2022, Burns, r. s. 1891 re-
fers to such access to, control or posses
sion as arises from the nature of the en-
ployment with reference to the particular
article of property feloniously appropri-
ated, and does not embrace mere physical
access thereto. 3. The omission to prove
the exact age of a defendant charged with
felony is not cause for a new trial, since
the defendant can avoid material injury
therefrom by declaring his age 4. The
verdict need only find whether defendant
is over the age of sixteen years and under
thirty, without stating his exact age. 5.
A verdict that a defendant charged with
petit larceny is guilty as charged in the
information" is sufficient. 6. The punish
ment for petit larceny may include a fine.
1S10n Gyndar Of al VIC TfhhnffC Admin
istrator. Wells G.. G. Affirmed. Baker,
il. The plaintiff, in an action for seduc-
ton, cannot be required to plead the evil
dence by which she expects to prove that
defendant, by articles and persuasion, ac-
complishsd her ruin. 2. Where the seduc-
ton of plaintiff and the production of one
or more abortions on her person consti-
tuted a single continuing wrong. a single
action for damages for such wrong was
proper. 3. Where a third person, after the
seducer had wronged plaintiff, Joined with
him In persuading plaintiff to submit to an
abortion to conceal the ~wrongdoing and
aided in performing such abortion, he was
liable jointly with the seducer for the
whole wrong. 4. The two years statute Of
limitations does not begin to run against a
civil action for damages for seduction until
the relations ~springing out Of the seduction
have ceased. 1t does not run from the first
of a series of acts which together consti-
tuted a continuing wrong. 5. Five thou
sand dollars damages for the seduction of
a young girl by a man of mature years
will not be set aside as excessive.
1861. In re Bank of Commerce VS.. Wilt
sic: Prosecuting Attorney. Marion c: G.
ton for rehearing Overruled.
APPELLATE COURT.
3113. Phoenix Insurance Company ct al.
VS.. Jacobs ct al. Elkhart c.. G. Affirmed.
Black, il. The right to move to dismiss
for technical defects In an appeal may be
waived by an appearance without objection
and an agreement RI Snhmif That the
person to whom a debtor had, without con-
sideration, assigned his claims against GER
tain insurance companies for damages by
fire with the fraudulent intent to defeat the
claims of his creditors was released by
such creditors upon surrendering all the
money he had collected on the policies as
signed would not affect the right of such
creditors to proceed in punishment against
the insurance companies for the amount
due from them to such debtors. 8. I'm
proper evidence cannot be successfully at
tackled by objections to questions which
might call for competent evidence. A mo-
ton to strike out the Objectionable evil
dence should be made 4. The rights Of at
taching creditors cannot be affected by
proof of admissions made by the debtor
after the suit was brought tending to show
was fraudulent.
2SS6. PIERCE. Receiver, VS.. Chism. How
ard S. c. Reversed. Henley. IA COM
plaint against a receiver must show by
proper allegations that leave Of court to
bring the suit was duly obtained. or that
the receiver was appointed by a United
States Court, and that the suit comes with
i'm the act of Congress of 1887, authorizing
suits against receivers so appointed, with
out obtaining leave of court in some in
stances, or it will be insufficient on general
demurrer.
1856. Farmers Insurance Company VS..
Burris. Martin G. c. Reversed. Comstock,
il. A complaint on an insurance policy
to recover damages for a loss by fire, in
order to withstand a demurrer, must al
lege that the property burned was. at the
time of the fire, the property of and owned
by plaintiff. 2. An allegation that as to all
the insured property plaintiff suffered a
total loss, all to his damage in the sum off,
the amount of the policy. is not a sufficient
allegation Of ownership to Withstand a de-
murrer.
1886. Baker. Executor, VS.. Cauthorn, ST.,
ct al. Kno c. c. Cause advanced.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room 1-John L. McMaster, Judge.
Charles Smith, administrator, VS.. c., c.,
G. q st. L. Railroad Company; damages.
Jury returned verdict for defendant.
Room Flames NJ. Leathers. Judge.
Edward +. Brown VS.. Citizens Street
railroad Company; damages. On trial BY
jury.
Room 3-vinson Carter. Judge.
George w. Lutz VS.. ]. s.. Farrell; appeal.
Finding for defendant. Judgment against
plaintiff for costs.
Charles King VS.. p. c., c. & St L. Rail-
way Company; damages. Finding and
Judgment against defendant for $3.50 n