The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-05-10
THE NEWS LITIGATION
SUPREME COURT DECIDES IN MAI. w.
y. RICHARDs's FAVOR.
HIS P~artnersi Appeal Dismissed-Re-
sisting Dissolution Was. a Com
tract Viola ton.

The suit of Charles r. Williams and Della
van Smith against William j. Richards was
Yesterday dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The suit Is that involving the ownership Of
the Indianapolis News. The Superior Court
Of this county held that Major Richards
was entitled to an accounting and a dissolu-
tion OF partnership. and an order of sale
for the plant was prepared. From this ruiz
ing Mr.. Williams and Mr.. Smith took an APP
peal to the Supreme Court, and Major Rich
ards then moved to dismiss the appeal. This
motion was sustained and all present pro-
ceedings in the Supreme Court are now at
an end
There Is a difference of opinion over the
next step. Some hold that a petition fo-
rehearing may be flied. and in this event
sixty days are allowed In which TO do so.
Other attorneys are Of opinion that this
action cannot be taken or that such a right
will be waived and the paper advertised for
sale at once. The decision of the Supreme
Court was delivered by Judge Baker. After
reviewing the steps in the litigation over the
property he said:
a party may not accept a benefit based
On the LEGALITY of an adjudication and there
after be heard to complain that II Is errOn-
eous. This appeal Is from the decree as an
entirety. Appellants may not act upon part
and resist the residue Blu they contend
that they have not accepted any benefit
that has its basis upo the legahty of the
received as their dues under the partnership
contract. BY the contract each party had
After Appellee notified appellants that the
partnership was no knger agreeable to him.
appellants were not entitled TO a contin-
uance OF appelleefS services IN managing the
business for their berefit. BY the contract
appellee had the charge and management OF
the business part OF the newspaper. Appel
ants had No r4uhf IN RIM the hI-fnaCG nor
TO have 1t continued for them. After appel
lees notice, appellants rights under the con-
tras1 were 10 receive their proportionate
share of a distribution upon an Immediate
winding up OF the firms affairs. To resist
dissolution was a violation Of their contract.
The firms assets were taken into the Gus
tody OF the court. BY virtue of the court :
decree the business has been carried on,
and appellants. while prosecuting this APP
peal. have been receiving moneys under the
decree divided in proportion fixed by the
decree. These benefits exclude the appel
lanfs, Dot by contract, but by the courts
action upon their breach OF the contract.
Tha appeal Is dismissed"
STREET-RAILWAY CASES.
The cases which grew out of the cid con-
fre versy between tho city and the street.
railway companies were both dismissed.
The first case was that brought by the
city 10 quiet the title to certain streets.
The other case was the one appealed by the
Cftizens' Street-railway Company, in which
the city enjoined 1t from laying tracks in
certain streets il. the northern part OF the
city.
The case Of Walter III. Ransdel and others
against David II. Moore. involving a large
smount OF land in Clinton and Boone coun-
ties, was reversed. The court holds that
the brothers are entitled 10 a share OF the
properly.
William r.. Prescott and others against
Theodore II. Haughey and others was over
ruled. The plaintiffs lost a large amount OF
noney In the failure OF the Indianapolis
National Bank and tried 10 hold the di-
rccfors personally responsible. on the
! grounds that they had published fraudn-