The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-25
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1917. SimOnS VS.. Bllunger. Lagrange
G. c. Affirmed. Hadley, C. J.-Where a
husband and VIE hold land conveyed to
them by deed in the words following
Convey and warrant TO Daniel 5. Kerr
such owners hold the real estate therein
conveyed as an estate by entirety and not
joint tenants.
1856. Stevens VS.. Leonard. Lake c. c.
Affirmed Bowling, il. A verdict which
is contrary to the evidence is correctly
described in a motion for a new trial in
the language of the statute, as not sIs-
tanned by sufficient evidence. 3 The ex-
istence of bitter and implacable resent
ments Is not Incompatible with entire sound
ness of mind. 3. the mere fact that the
testator at the time OF the execution OF
his will is suffering from acute pain does
not take away testamentary capacity.
4. Where there is evidence to sustain
an issue of fact the trial court may with
draw the consideration of such fact by in
structing the jury to disregard it. 5. I'm
due influence in the execution or a VIII
is that which compels the restator to do
that which is against his will, through
fear or the desire of peace, or some feel
ing which he is unable TO resist, and but
for which the will would not have been
made as 1t was. g. While it is not neces-
sary to the validity of will that the
subscribing witness should know that the
instrument they attest is a will, yet in the
absence of proof to the contrary, they
will be presumed to have had such knowl-
edge when they attested Ii. z. In an action
to contest the validity of will where
the relations between the decedent and a
relative becomes a material fact proof
of distrust and dislike cherished by the
decedent is competent evidence when the
will is attacked upon the ground of un-
soundness of mind of the testator. s. This
court will not weigh conflicting evidence so
as to determine where the preponderance
lies
1882 varnish Company VS.. Reed Elk
hart c. c. Petition for rehearing over
1853. City of Huntington VS.. Folk Wa
bash c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled.
1918. Mccoy VS.. Mccoy. Lake C. C..
Petition to withdraw record granted.
APPELLATE COURT.
1892 Bradley VS.. Eby. Bartholomew C..
G. Reversed. Comstock, il. In the con-
struction of a contract the court looks to
the intent of the parties. 2. An agree
ment to rent a farm to tenant, in the
absence of a contract for the purpose of
partnership, will not make the landlord and
tenant partners. 3. The ultimate and
conclusive test of a partnership is the
ownership of the profits Of the business.
1912. Bowman VS.. National Bank. Della
ware G. c. Affirmed. Black, il. An
action against an estate is commenced by
filing a claim against the estate and it's
entry on the appearance docket as re-
quired by statute; and 1t is not necessary
for the claimant I'm the statement of his
claim to name the administrator. 2. When
a surety seeks his discharge because of
extension of time of payment, he relies
Upon the existence of collateral contract
between his principal and his creditor, and
he should state the contract including the
promise and the consideration so that when
the facts pleaded are considered by the
court 1t may be regarded such a con-
tract as will release a surety; such con-
tract as precludes the creditor from en-
forcing payment against the principal
afn ifa6 anrin has axrir
is the duty of an administrator to defend
the estate which he represents against
claims filed against it and where he ap-
pears and demurs to the complaint 1t is
proper for the court after disposing of the
demurrer, to enter a rule against him to
plead to a cross-complaint and to enforce
the rule against him as in other civil
actions.
1859. Atkinson VS.. Van Cleave. Newton
G.. c. Motion to strike out bill of excep-
tions overruled.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room John l.. McMaster, Judge.
Benjamin Richcreek VS.. Allen Leary; i'm
provement lien. Finding and judgment for
plaintiff for $261.30 and costs.
Harriet Paulson VS.. indianapolis Street
| railway Company; damages. Dismissed
and costs paid.
Lucette Beard VS.. Edward Beard; d.
vorce. Finding and decree for plaintiff
| Judgment against defendant for costs.
Charles r. Clark VS.. Indianapolis Dror
Forging Company; damages. Tried by
jury. Evidence heard in part and con-
| tinued.
Room 3-Vinson Carter, Judge.
Hattie May Hendrix VS.. Alexander Hen
| dirk: divorce. DISMISSED. Judgment
against defendant for Costs.
Nancy w. Montague, Administrative, et
al VS.. c., c., c. & St. l.. Railway Com
pany; damages. Jury returned verdict fol-
CIRCUIT COURT
Henry Clay Allen, Judge,
| State of Indiana, ex rel. Lizzie, Favis VS.
| Henry Schuck: bastardy. On motion OF
State, appeal dismissed.
Lewis Brandenburg, ct al. VS.. Washing
ton Savings and Loan Association; for re-
| ceiver. Receiver files petition to accept
| deed from Lawrence ID. Wilson ct al
| Granted.
| Western Wheel Scraper Company VS.
| Murat w. Hopkins, assignee of Charles F
| Hunt. By agreement of parties dismissal
set aside Submitted to court. Claim al
| lowed for $5.1l2.67 and costs.
| Joseph Crime VS.. John II. Kemper, ct al
| damages. Evidence concluded. Argu
ment heard Jury instructed and retired
| and return verdict for plaintiff for S15O
| NEW SUITS FILED.
| Rhoda j. McJohnson VS.. Indianapoli:
| Street-railway Company; damages. Su
| perior Court, Room 8.
| Julia ID. Styers VS.. Charles f Styers
| suit for divorce. Superior Court, Room 2
| Bartholomew Walsh vs.. Mary Walsh
| divorce. Superior Court, Room 1.
| The Wall of the Women.