The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-03
THE COURT RECORD.
COURT.

1919. State OF Indiana VS.. Hendry. Steu-
dorsement of a number on the back of a
grain receipt specifying the quality of grain
the same calls for, so as the price of the
same may be fixed, is not a part of the re-
ceipt itself. and n change or alteration
Of said number by the holder thereof does
not constitute forgery.
1880. Town of Gosport VS.. Pritchard.
Owen G. G. Affirmed. Monks, il. Towns
in Indiana have the authority to contract
for the lighting of streets and alleys and
other public places. with electric or other
forms of light. 2. Fraud or abuse of discre-
ton is never presumed. but must be averred
and proven. 3. When a town has repudi-
ated its contract for street lighting the con-
tractor may sue at once for the amount
Que. 4. A writ of mandamus is not proper
when there is another adequate remedy.
B. Where a contract purports on its face to
be the contract OF a town, and it is signed
by the president of its Board of Trustees,
one of the trustees, and attested by the
clerk, ii shows that it Is a contract of the
town. g.. The expense of light and water
is essential to the maintenance of corporate
existence of towns and constitutes current
expenses, payable out of the current reve-
nues. Z. The power of municipal corpora
tiOnS TO contract for the lighting of streets
Is purely a business power and is discretion
airy. s. Discretionary powers vested in mu-
nicipal corporations are not subject TO iu-
Gicial control, except in cases where fraud
is shown or the discretion is grossly abused
TO the oppression Of the citizen.
1895. Town of Gosport VS.. Pritchard.
owen <. I. AHlHcu. MONKS, j. A1lrncQ
upon the authority of Appellant VS.. Appel
lee. No. 1920.
1862. Hay VS.. Mcdaniel. Clark C. c..
Transferred TO Appellate Court per curiam.
L Where a receiver is not prayed for nor
made pendente lite, but is appointed after
trial upon issues joined when all the issues
are disposed of. an appeal therefrom can be
OF appeal from all final judgments and de-
crees was not intended to be limited by
the subsequent enactment OF the statute al
ntrsn vnnnls 80 ~1n -
refusing to appoint receivers to be taken
within ten days.
1888. Gas. etc. Co. VS.. City of New AL
bany. Clark c. c. Petition for rehearing
1906. Allen VS.. MCGEE. Monroe c. c.
Transferred to Appellate Court.
1879. Day VS.. Gaming. Delaware c. c.
1901. p. c., c. & ST. L. Ry. CO. VS.. Bolner.
Blackford C.. c. Same.
1901. Franklin VS.. Lee. Vanderburg c. c..
1914. Boyle VS.. wigal. Switzerland c.. C.
Same.
1915. G., G.. c.. & st: L. Ry. Co. VS.. Pen
keith. Madison c.. G.. Same.
1851. Maxwell vs.. Schirtz. Boone c. C..
1872. stabano VS.. Leeds. Laporte c. C.
l94S1. Utter VS.. Kersey. Boone C. C. Same.
Minutes
194Sl. Samuel j. Utter ct al. VS.. Eliza
beth Kersey. Boone c. c. Appellants pc
tition and affidavit for publication.
1884. Annie A. Smith ct al. VS.. Willard
A. Fairfield ct al. Allen c. c. Appellants
reply brief (.)
i9461. Lewis C. Stewart VS.. Ida M. Stew
art. Marion G. G. Appellants reply brief.
1900. w. S. Ralya, administrator, VS.. r..
c. Atkins & Co. Marion S. c. Appellants
additional authorities.
APPELLATE COURT.
SSS2. c. & S. L; Ry. Co. VS.. Adams, Boone
c.. c.. Reversed. Robinson. il. A pro-
cooling nndPr Section XIII RI1rpc 1904
against a railroad agent to answer for
moneys in his hands belonging to the COM
pany is an original action. and the com
plant should show that the justice before
whom the Judgment was taken had juris-
diction Of the cause. .. Money paid i'm upon
order of court is not a voluntary
and until the moving party RECEIVERS judg-
ment against the party paying the money
into court he is not entitled TO any part
thereof.
3445. Bugh VS.. Crum. Wells c.. c. Az
firmed. Henley. C. il. The execution of a
note bearing interest for accrued interest
upon another note is a sufficient consider
ation Tor extending the time OF payment of
the note due. ?. Where the payment of a
promissory note is extended for a definite
period for a VALUABLE consideration without
the consent of the surety, and the holder
of the note knows Of the suretyship, the
surety will be released.
1911. Rietman VS.. Bangert. Vanderburg
S. c. Reversed. Comstock, il. A COM
plant must proceed upon a definite theory,
which must be clear and manifest. 2. Facts
and not conclusions must be pleaded direct
ly and not by way of recital.
343S. North British CO.. etc. VS.. Rudy.
Rush C. g. Affirmed. Wiley, il. IL is
not error 10 permit an amendment of q
complaint where the cause of action is not
changed. 2. The statute authorizing amend
ments of pleadings should be literally con-
strued. 3. Granting leave TO file amended
pleadings after the issues are closed and
pending trial Is largely within the discre-
ton of the trial court. and it is only in
cases where there seems TO have been an
abuse Of that discretion. apparently re-
sulting in injustice. that an appellate tri-
bunal will interfere. 4. 1t is not error 20
sustain a demurrer to an answer when all
the facts therein can be proved under the
general denial. 5. An application for a con-
tinuance IL addressed 10 the sound discre-
ton of the court, and the action Of the trial
court VIII not be interfered with except i'm
cases of abuse. 8. II is not error 10 refuse
an instruction already given by the court.
347. State ex rel. VS.. Stout. TippecanOe
S. c. Affirmed. Black, il. Where an in
strument is not the foundation of the ac-
ton il is not properly an exhibit in the
complaint. ?. In the purchase of school
supplies by a township trustee, where he
issues warrants in payment therefor no
debt is created against the trustee person
ally. 5. A township trustee has no power
to bind his township by a contract pur-