The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-04
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1872. Rinkenberger VS.. Meyer Lake c. G.
Affirmed. Hadley, G. il. Where the will
of a testator provided as follows: II give
and bequeath all my property which l now
have. both real and personal, and all of
which L may die possessed of and entitled
TO from the government of the United
beloved wife during her natural
life, then / bequeath the same to a
niece of my said wife TO her and
hers forever. My will is that my said wife
have right to use and expend so much Of
said property as shall be needful for her
support; that she may sell the .
land which l now own in Lake county, If
she desires to do so, and what of my prop
erty Is left at her decease shall go to said
niece. Held, that the testator intended to
confer upon his wife the power to sell and
convey any portion or all of his estate il
she desired. 2. An offer TO prove a fact
must be made pending a question, after OBJ
lection and before the ruling of the court,
to be renewable upon appeal.
1927. Mason VS.. Rabetof. Howard G. c.
Motion to amend assignment of error
granted.
APPELLATE COURT
3349 l.. Z. q w. Railroad Company VS..
Hoff. Cass G. G. Affirmed. Henley, il. A
deed TO real estate placed of record gives
notice of its contents to all holding there
under, and the liability Of a subsequent
purchaser is measured by the deed as it
stands of record. 2. If an averment essen
tial to the sufficiency of a pleading is
omitted therefrom and the special finding
finds such omitted averment, which, If IL
had been contained in the pleading, would
have rendered the same sufficient, will not
cure the error OF the court in overruling a
demurrer to such pleading. g. special
finding, special verdict, or answers to in
terrogatories may show that the errors of
the trial court in its rulings upon demur-
rers were harmless. but in no case can
they supply essential averments omitted
from a pleading. 4. Where sufficient facts
are found upon sufficient complaint TO
uphold a judgment the latter will not be
disturbed on appeal.
1925. Martz VS.. Cook. Montgomery c. G..
Affirmed. Comstock, J.-1When payment of
a promissory note has been made is a
question OF fact to be determined by the
jury in forming their verdict and TO dis
turb the judgment The evidence must be
weighed 2. A new trial cannot be granted
on account of newly discovered evidence.
unless of such character that 1t will
change the result. g. To present any ques-
ton upon impeaching questions asked,
there must be the proper objections and
exceptions taken or motions made TO strike
the questions and the answers thereto out.
4. When IL is attempted to impeach a wit
ness upon contrary statements made out OF
court IL Is not necessary that either party
TO the action should have been present al
the time the statements were made.
301I. Will VS.. Improvement Company
Fulton c. G. Affirmed. Black, il In ar
action To recover installments OF purchase
money due. the time for payment of the
last installment and for the execution OF
the conveyance by the plaintiff not having
arrived at the commencement OF the ac-
| ton. IL Is not necessary that the complaint
show performance. Or tender or perform
ance or readiness and ability TO perform
on the part of the piaintin. 2. Where pur.
chasers OF real estate among themselves
adopt scheme OF distributing the lots K