The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-03-09

LudOc a party QcIenQ1nt IN the place Oh the
appellant in the action in the lower court.
when the appeal is prosecuted by the
person interested and the appeal bond re-
cites that the nominal appellant appeals
for the use OF his grantor the party inter-
ested. 2. An appealable interest In a cause
Is said to exist when the Judgment or de-
cree so affects a party or priyy thereto
that he would derive substantial benefit
from its modification or reversal. J. II Is
not sufficient, in order to entitle a person TO
maintain an appeal, TO show that he Is
merely a party or privity to the proceed
ings, but IL must also appear that he pos
sesses an ~appealable interest In the cause.
L. n remote grantor of real estate when
his covenants of warranty run with the
land conveyed after being notified by a
subsequent grantee to defend an action
against the title to the land and such
grantor makes a defense in the name OF
such grantee In case of en- adverse judg-
ment the grantor may appeal thereform.
although the grantee Is not required TO
appeal. 5. When an action is brought TO
enforce a paramount claim Of title against
one who is protected by covenants OF war
ranty, the warrantee can by giving the
proper notice to his warrantor, relieve him
self from the burden OF being compelled TO
prove, In an action to recover on the COW
enants, that he was evicted by a claimant
under a paramount title, and in the abb
sence of fraud or collision a warrantor
will not be permitted TO prove that n re-
TO a paramount title. 6. A person Is said
to be in privity when he is SO connected
with another person in an estate, a right
or liability, as TO be affected In like man.
ner.
1906. Campbell VS.. State OF Indiana.
Knox G. c. Reversed. Hadley. c. jim
the construction of an Indictment for OBJ
tanning money under false pretenses, words
must be employed which impart with rea-
sonable certainty the facts essential to the
crime charged; the averments must show
a coherent and consistent connection be-
tween the pretenses and accomplished fraud
and the indictment must in express terms
negative the truthfulness of the pretenses.
1921. First National Bank vs.. Turner.
Wayne G. c. Motion to advance sustained.
APPELLATE COURT.
3039. Heffelflnger VS.. Fulton. Wells G. G.
Affirmed. Henley, J.-Where an employer
of farm labor hires a servant and to bet
ter enable u servant TO perform his
work gives him possession of a dwelling
house and appurtenances thereto belong
ing as a part compensation for his labor
the relation of landlord and tenant does
not exist, and when such servant is elected
by the landlord he cannot recover from the
latter possession Of the premises or dam
ages for trespass.
3031. German Insurance Company VS.. Sci
bert. LAX s. c. Reversed. Comstock. j.
i. The law presumes that property de-
StrOyed by fire is of some value. 2. In an
action to recover for a loss by fire in the
burning of wearing apparel which was in
sured along with household goods an aver
ment In the complaint that the loss on the
household goods has been adjusted, but no
adjustment has been made as to the loss
on wearing apparel, Is an averment of an
adjustment limited to the household goods.
8. A denial of any liability by the insurer
for loss caused by fire is a waiver OF proof
Of loss as to the property destroyed. 4. In
the absence of fraud in the settlement of
an insurance loss where the party insured
receipts in full for his damage and he
expresses himself as satisfied with the
settlement he will be bound thereby.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room John L. McMaster. Judge.
Emil Wulschner VS.. Lota Lehritter; re-
against defendant for possession of prop
erty and ! cent damages and costs.
Room FLAMES NJ. feathers. Judge.
Frederick Schillinger VS.. William Krass
ct al; account. Evidence heard. Taken
under advisement by court.
Martha E. Landers VS.. State Bank of
Indiana ct al; replevin. Dismissed at
plaintiffs costs.
Room S-vinson Carter, Judge.
Annie Read VS.. Harriet Leggo ct al; to
quiet title. Dismissed by plaintiff without
prejudice. Judgment against plaintiff for
costs.
The Bloomington Cider and Vinegar Com
pam VS.. the Blue Grass Grocery and
Creamery Company; appeal. On trial by
court.
Adolph Coll VS.. Eureka Saving and Loan
Association; intervening petition. Contin-
ued until March 26.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Fremont Afford, Judge.
Alvin Abbott, from City Court; assault
and battery. Defendant arraigned. Plea
of not guilty. Trial by court. Evidence
heard. Finding not guilty.
CIRCUIT COURT.
Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Mary WEIGH VS.. Nora A. Simpsons Es-
tate; claim for $3.50. Submission TO jury
withdrawn and by agreement claim dis
missed at costs of estate.
Thomas G. Perry VS.. John King ct al.
from Shelby county. Parties file dismissal
Of cause. Costs paid.
William A. Coble VS.. Lyman Curtis; SIAN
der. Change of venue taken. Cause sent
to Shelby county.
w. A. Scott G. Son VS.. Adolph S~chleicher's
Estate. Settled and dismissed at costs OF
estate.
Jacob Arnold VS.. Adolph Schleicher's Es-
tate. Settled and dismissed at costs Of es-
tate.
Emma MacSchultz VS.. Clark ]. Hawk et
al; contest of will. Submitted to court.
Evidence heard. Finding for plaintiff. Or
and will be declared void. Costs taxed to
administrator of John MacSchultz estate.
NEW SUITS FILED.
Louise Walter VS.. George Walter; COM
plant for divorce. Superior Court, Room L
Lulu Gent Memethy VS.. Carl Memethy;
complaint for divorce. Superior Court,
Room 2.
Ellen Claus VS.. John Robert Claus: com.
plant for divorce. Superior Court, Room 3