The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-13
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

SUPREME COURT.
1906 Wood VS. State ex rel. Seller. St
Joseph c. c. Reversed. Hadley, c. j.
The right of mandamus must be clear
and certain in order to be invoked by a
court. 2. Where treasurer Of schooi
treasurer to compel the latter to pay an
alleged balance due upon certain orders
previously drawn by the county auditor In
favor OF the school city. held that the re,
an interest in the subject matter, 90 that
the orders In controversy were in part un-
paid, CD that the amount unpaid was nxed
and certain, (D that there was sumcient
money in the treasury liable to the pay
ment, (5) prior demand and refusal of the
defendant to pay; the mere delay or SIX
teen months in bringing the action Will not
of itself make the complaint bad s. Wnere
a county treasurer is exercising a state
function relative to funds In his charge he
is in no sense an agent of the county so
as to make the latter responsible Tor ms
acts. 1. The office of county treasurer Is
continuing one and demand upon one treas
urer for payment of money in the treasury
Is demand upon his successor. D. Inc
court will not undertake to make county
officer do thing that Is impossible or per-
Torrance.
1905. Fidelity. ETC., Union VS.. Byrd. How
ard 8. c. Dismissed. Monks. il. The
transcript of the record must be authenu-
Gated by the seal Of the lower court ano
certificate to present any question TO this
court 2. A court speaks by its record and
unless the same is authenticated by the
certificate Of the clerk and seal OF the court
there Is no evidence that Ii Is the record
of the court
1887 Morrow vs. Mass, ETC., Ins. Co.
Marion s. c. Dismissed.
1914. Kelly We. State of Indiana. Hunt
fngton G. G. Transferred to Appellate Court.
APPELLATE COURT.
Do fh IVY
G. Reversed. Black, il. The exercise OF
dominion by one person over the goods or
another to the exclusion OF the latter IN
defiance of his rights constitutes a CONVEX
sion. g When a person employs another
to act his agent in buying grain. the
grain when purchased becomes the prop
erty of the principal and he Is entitled TO
make such profit thereon as might be MADE
by sale thereof, and when the agent with
holds from the principal an amount OF
grain purchased the principal may recover
from the agent the amount OF proht ne
would have made by sale OF the grain. =
G. Affirmed. Henley. il. A simple pay.
ment and acceptance of less sum OF
money in satisfaction Of greater iquida-
ted sum due will not be sufficient to sustain
a plea Of accord and satisfaction. 2. To
make the receipt of part of debt a dis
charge of the whole. there must be new
consideration or a voluntary compromise
of a disputed and disputable demand or an
accord and satisfaction by the substitution
of a new contract or a submission OF the
matters in dispute to arbitration.
1913. L. E. & w. r. r. CO: Vs. Grover.
Henry c. c. Reversed. Wiley. il. To
attach liability to railroad company for
an injury received at a crossing by per-
son coliiding with a passing train, the rail-
road company must be negligent and sucn
negligence must be the proximate cause OF
the injury, and the person injured must not
by his own negligence contribute to his in
jury; and when sucn facts are found by the
general verdict they Will stand as against
such facts specially found unless such facts
affirmatively show that one or more OF the
necessary elements established by the gen.
eral verdict is untrue. 2. When person
approaches a known railroad crossing IL is
his duty to use diligence to ascertain
whether a train which he knows is due is
approaching, and If by using such diligence
a collision would have been avoided an IN
Jury received without taking such precau-
ton is attributed to his own negligence;
and the fact that distractions are In his
view impose upon him the duty OF in
creased care in the use of his senses or
sight and hearing.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room John L. McMaster. Judge.
William Magill VS.. John Asterman. On
check. Dismissed; costs paid.
Indianapolis Manufacturers and Carpen-
ters' Union VS.. Miller ct al. Mechanic 8
lien. At conclusion of evidence plaintin
accepted defendants tender made by de-
cost.
William Stringer, receiver, VS.. Mary Lutz
ct al. Foreclosure. Finding and Judgment
for plaintiff against defendants, Lutz and
Lutz, for S425 and costs.
Anna Ray VS.. Thomas Ray. Divorce.
Granted plaintiff with custody of minor
child, age thirteen years. Judgment against
defendant for costs.
Joseph Williams VS.. John w. Murphy.
On account. Plaintiff dismisses as to John
w. Murphy.
Milburn Wagon Company VS.. jefferson
Caylor On judgment. Finding and judg-
ment ,or plaintiff against defendant for
$685. 81 and costs.
Room FLAMES NJ. feathers, Judge.
Terre Haute Brewing Company vs. Ed
ward and John Doyle. Repleyin. Submit
ted to court. Evidence heard. Finding
that PLAINTIFF is the owner and entitled to
possession of property. Judgment against
plaintiff for costs.
Emily A. league VS.. Citizens Street Rail-
road Company. Damages. ON trial by
tinued.
Room 3-vinson Carter. Judge.
John Miller VS.. indianapolis Natural Gas
Company. Damages. Dismissed and costs
paid.
Margaret Collins VS.. Thomas E. Collins.
Divorce. Granted plaintiff and former
NAME Margaret Grotes, restored. Judg-
ment against defendant for costs.
Phebe NJ. Hart, administrative, vs. C.,
C., &. IL st. IL. Railway Company. DAM
age. Jury instructed to return verdict for
defendant.
CIRCUIT COURT
Henry Clay Allen, Judge
Anna Z. Greeves vs. The Life Assurance
Company of America; for receiver. Dis
missed by plaintiff. Judgment against
plaintiff for costs.
Michael f. Howard VS.. The New Bird
sail Company. From justice Of the peace.
Finding for plaintiff. Judgment against de-
PENDANT for S140.10 and costs.
Ida NJ. Stewart VS. Louis &. Stewart; d.
vorce. Defendant files appeal bond In sum
of $500 with Charles c. Gilmore as secur-
ity. Approved.
Henry n. Plummer vs. Board of County
Commissioners of Marion county Appeal.
Submitted to court. Evidence heard. Find
ing for plaintiff. Judgment against defend
ant for SIS. and against plaintiff for
costs.
Newton Kunkle VS.. Almira Adams's es-
tate; claim for $5.55s. Dismissed by agree
ment at cost of estate.
NEW SUITS FILED.
Samuel A. Hollensbe VS.. Thomas @. Dav-
idson ct al: suit on account Circuit
Court.
Marcus F. Lewis VS.. Louis Kaminsky eft
A ~