The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-28

a SOicAilQllOn dC JOh OiIsl g W
the United States Supreme Court 2. The
following principles are applicable 10 as
sessments for local improvements: The
legislature may create. or authorize a mu-
inequality TO create, a local taxing district
for local Improvement purposes, which in
cludes part only of the property within the
municipality; the Legislature may declare
conclusively that only the property within
the taxing district shall be specially as
sessed on account of local Improvement
within hat district, n each parcel or
contributing property may be assessed
only to the extent that it actually receives
special benefits: the taxing district as a
whole may be assessed only TO the extent
of the sum OF the special benefits actually
received by the several parcels of con-
~tributing property; the Improvement. so
to the several parcels of property
in the taxing district, is a benefit to the
municipality at large, and such excess
must be borne by the general treasury;
property owners affected by an improve
ment within a taxing district are entitled
to a hearing on the question or special
benefits. and none of said principles are
denied by the Barrett law 3. In the
search for legislative intent the court will
look to each and every part of the statute;
to the circumstances under which IL was
enacted; to the old law upon the subject. II
any,; to other statutes upon the subject or
relative subjects, whether in force or re-
pealed; to contemporaneous legislative his
tory and to the evils and mfSchiefs to be
remedied. 4. In ascertaining the intention
OF the Legislature in enacting a statute or
several sections the entire statute must be
considered. 5. Section 3 of the Barrett
law" of 1889 must be construed as provid-
ing a rule of prima facie assessments in
street and alley improvements, which al
lotmentS by the city or town engineer, UNI
der Section 6 of said act, are subject to re-
view and alteration by the common coun-
Gil and board of trustees, under Section Z
of said act, as amended by Acts of 1891, p.
324, and 1899. p. 81, upon the basis of actual
special benefits received by the improve
ment, and under Section z of said act the
common council of a city or board of trus-
tees of an Incorporated town have the DOW
er and it is their duty to adjust the assess
ments for street and alley improvements to
conform to the actual special benefits &C.
cruing to each of the AUDITING property
owners and the costs of such Improvement
exceeding the special benefits accruing to
abutting property must be paid from the
general revenues.
1879. Owen VS.. Dresback. Grant c.. c..
Motion to dismiss overruled.
$685. Allen VS.. MCGEE. Monroe c. g.
Certiorari granted and issued.
1924. Case VS.. Nelson. Cass G. G. Mo-
ton to dismiss overruled.
Minutes
1876. The State of Indiana ex rel. Sarah
A. Repp ct al. VS.. Jabez T. Cox. Original
action for writ of mandamus. Demurrer to
respondents answer and return filed.
1851. The Maule 0 Company etc. vs..
John Parienheimer, administrator. Gibson
G. c: Appellants brief on petition to sub
1906. Margaret Till VS.. Sarah Trail Col
her: De Kalb c. c. Appellants supplement
tai brief.
193O7. NJ. Helen Huntington VS.. Rufus X.
Syfers ct al. Hendricks c.. c. Appellee's Pc
tition for certiorari. Notice Brief on pc
tltion.
APPELLATE COURT.
3o47. Knights Of Maccabees VS.. Volkert.
Marion c. c.. Affirmed. Wiley, c. il. To
support an assignment Of error based upon
the overruling of a demurrer to a COM
plant for want of facts the defects in the
complaint must be pointed out and argued.
2. To present any question for review upon
appeal on the ruling of the trial court to
strike out a pleading or a part thereof,
such pleading or parts of pleading, the mo-
ton and ruling thereon must be brought
into the record by a bill of exceptions. 8.
An insurance society which demands and
accepts payment of dues after the death of
a member. with knowledge of such death,
is estopped from denying liability on the
certificate of membership. 4. The mere
fact that the member of an insurance So
ciety Is engaged in a prohibited business,
under the contract of insurance, will not
forfeit the right to collect the amount of
the insurance when the insured pays his
dues and assessments to the local authori-
ties of the insurer after he becomes en-
gagged in the prohibited business with the
knowledge of the fact that he was so en-
gagged and the insurer receives and retains
the last payment with a knowledge of the
fact, and the further knowledge that the
insured died when engaged in such pro-
hibited business. 5. An insurance COM
pany may waive the right to avoid a policy
for breach of some of its conditions. An
act lone after notice of the breach of con-
ditions which recognizes the validity of the
policy is a waiver Of the right to avoid it
for that reason.
1927. p, c., C. & st. L. Railway Com
nqnv We Carlson POrfar = - pofifior
for rehearing overruled.
1856. lumbar, etc, Association VS..
Walker. De Kalb c. c. Motion to dismiss
overruled.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room 1-John L.. McMaster, Judge.
William Wilkins VS.. Cort Matthias: fore
closure. Finding and judgment for plant
if against defendant for 81, 1874. As and costs.
Decree of foreclosure and order of sale.
Conrad S~hellhouse VS.. Alexander Robert.
son; damages. On trial by court.
Room FLAMES NJ. Leathers, Judge.
man: divorce Decree granted plaintiff
Judgment against plaintiff for costs.
Standard Saving and Loan Association
VS.. George Vansickle ct al: foreclosure
Finding and Judgment for plaintiff against
George w. Vansickle for 81, 731. 90. withou,
relief. and costs. Foreclosure and sale or.
dered.
II Eilcn SdS6y VS.. NdIlOldl MUTUAL Lie AS
sociation; damages. Dismissed at plaintiff
costs.
| Mary f. Root VS.. Charles G. Root; di
vorce. Decree granted plaintiff. judgment
against defendant for costs.
Room 3-vinson Carter, Judge.
Belle Douglass VS.. Samuel Douglass e.
al; support. Dismissed by plaintiff. Judg
ment against plaintiff for costs.
Ernest Kitz VS.. Indianapolis Street-rail
way Company; damages. Dismissed fol
want Of prosecution.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Elisha Mannon ct al. VS.. Sarah J.. Man
non ct al; partition. Commissioner files re
port of sale. Report approved and sal,
confirmed. Deeds rendered and approved
Charles Brown VS.. Indianapolis Street
ailway Company; damages. Change O
county.
Evelyn Lancaster VS.. John o. Cooper e
al; from justice of the peace. Submitte,
to jury. Evidence heard.
Bake & Krauss Company VS.. John c
Robinson; mechanics lien. Dismissed b,
plaintiff. Costs paid.
NEW SUITS FILED.
Louisa Sullivan VS.. the Life ~Insuranc
| Company of Virginia; complaint on policy
| Demand $500. Circuit Court.
Wesley Hare ct al. VS.. the Chicago, Indi
annapolis & Louisville Railway Company
complaint for ejectment. Circuit Court.
Rose Nicholson VS.. Edgar Nicholson: oil
vorce. Circuit Court.
Bertha v. Porter VS.. Tilden Porter; di
vorce. Circuit Court.
Charles d. Bushong VS.. the City of In
/ dianapolis: damages. Demand $1,000. ST.
| perior Court, Room l..