The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-06-29
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1ss4S. Hanson VS.. Cruise. Marion s. c.
Affirmed. Baker. c. il. The relation of
landlord, and tenant raises neither an i'm
piled warranty of habitability of the dwell
ing nor an obligation to repair on the land
lords part. 2. Where a landlord accepts
rent and contracts with the tenant to re-
pair obvious defects in the dwelling house
il consideration of such rent, damages for
personal injuries to the tenant resulting
from such obvious defects are too remote
to be recovered from the landlord. 3. A
judgment will not be reversed by reason Of
sustaining a demurrer, for want OF juris-
diction, and because other demurrers were
improperly drafted when the pleading de-
INJURED to is bad.
1888. Clements VS.. Davis. Montgomery
c.. c. Reversed. Bowling, il. Where a
wife seeks to enjoin the sheriff from pay
ing money held in his hands as the pro-
ceeds of a sale under foreclosure proceed
ings, and the husband claims no interest in
the money, he is not a necessary party. 2
When property is sold at sheriffs sale up
on foreclosure proceedings and there comes
into the hands of the sheriff through such
sale more than a sufficient amount of
money to pay the mortgage debt as fore
closed and the costs attached thereto. the
wife of the mortgageor is entitled to one
third Of such residue of the proceeds Of the
sale. Notwithstanding the fact that the de-
cree in foreclosure provided that the over
plus after paying the foreclosure judgment
should be paid to judgment creditors Of
the husband when such wife was not made
a party to the action TO defend the interest
claimed by such Judgment creditors. 3. AS
a general rule one defendant can have no
affirmative relief against a codefendant In
a foreclosure suit without a cross COM
plant setting forth the particulars of his
claim and rendering an issue. a. Where
there Is a default the judgment of the court
is conclusive only as to such matters as are
properly averred or charged in the plead
ings and which might have been litigated
under them 5. In a suit to foreclose a
mortgage on the lands of the husband ex-
..,fo 49, chn ~1 nDI nrffo 70 rrkfph emit
| general judgment creditors of the husband
are made defendants, and to which the
wife is a party. IL is not necessary that she
should set up her inchoate right to one
third of the lands mortgaged, or the pro-
ceeds Of their sale as against the judg-
ment creditors; and, when her interest in
the lands Is not specifically put in issue she
will not be concluded by a Judgment d.
recting the sale of the land and the appli-
cation of the proceeds, after the payment
of the mortgage debt. to the discharge OF
the general judgments against her husband.
1888. Manufacturers etc, Company VS..
Indiana, etc, Company. Grant c. G. Re
| versed. Bowling. il. The owners of a
natural gas well cannot use extraordinary
means. such as pumping stations. to re-
duce gas TO possession. 2 Natural gas In
the ground is so far the subject OF property
rights m the owners Of the superintendent
lands that while each of them has the right
TO bore or mine for 1t on his own land. and
to use such portion of IL as when left TO
the natural fowage. 10 one of the owners
of such lands has the right, without the
consent of all other owners, to induce an
unnatural flow into or through his own
| wells, or to do any act with refernce TO the
common reservoir and body of gas therein.
| injurious to or calculated TO destroy IL. 8.
The manner Of taking natural gas from the
| ground must be reasonable, and not in1uri-
| Gus to or destructive of the common source
from which the gas is drawn.
1873. c. & E. L. r. r. Co. VS.. Richards.
Warren c. c. Petition to advance refused.
1900 - re E1Ifnff Marion - a.
l940S. In the matter OF removal OF Pas
kins. trustee. Original action. Submitted
and advanced.
Minutes
1e407. James NJ. Larned VS.. George p. FL
lott ct al. Marion c. G. Joint petition for
| oral argument. Motion Of appellees TO limit
Issss. State OF Indiana vs.. Isaac S. Win
STANDBY ct al. Clark c. c. Appellants re-
| ie2ss. samuel NJ. Hutton ct al. VS.. Nelson
Cunningham ct al. Montgomery c. c. APP
~pellants' reply brief.
APPELLATE COURT.
3O07. Terre Haute. etc. Railroad Com
pany VS.. Pruitt. Wig S. c. Reversed.
| sonal injury received by plaintiff while in
the employ of a railroad company as a
brakeman. the injury having been caused
| loose and allowing plaintiff to fall and be-
come injured. where the rules of the com
| rany require such employees TO examine and
know for themselvse that such hand-hold
is In a proper condition. and IL not put
them so or report them TO the proper par
ties and have them put In order before
! using. which rule plaintiff was acquainted
with. plaintiff must allege and prove that
he had no knowledge OF the defects and
could not have known them by the exercise
| OF ordinary care to entitie him TO recover.
2 An EMPLOYER maj ADOPT reasonable rules