The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-04
THE COURT RECORD.
COURT.

Room John L. McMaster, Judge.
6153S. Charles NJ. Clark VS.. Harry b. Bur-
nett: to set aside deed. On trial by court.
$685. Independent turner SAVING n
hard, trustee, ct al; dismissed and cost
paid.
Sarah E. Newcomer and Nancy ]. New
conner VS.. John Huggler ct al; complaint
Cor foreclosure, Room l.
Mahlon Hamilton VS.. Charles w. Daw-
son ct al; complaint on note, Room 8.
diana School for Feeble-minded Youth,
The Inland Chemical Company VS.. The
Pitman-Myers Company ct al; complaint
Orla c. Berry VS.. Gussie Berry; COM
plant for divorce. Room 2.
apoIis Lounge Company ct al; complaint on
note, Room 3.
Anna Bosinstein vs.. Himan Ringolsky;
Joseph G. Straughan VS.. Indianapolis
Lounge Company; complaint on note.
John w. Young VS.. The National Glue
Company; complaint for damages. Circuit
William Haueisen VS.. Samuel Healing ct
al; suit for possession. Circuit Court.
SUPREME COURT.
1929. Barney VS.. Indiana, etc, Co.. st.
Joseph C. c. Affirmed. Monks, C.. il. A
contract may be read and construed in the
light of the position and surroundings OF
the parties In regard to the subject OF the
tended or contradicted by allegations con-
corning the intention or understanding of
must be determined from the contract, read
in the light of their situation and sur
1s4S3. City Of Indianapolis VS.. Hetzel.
Marion S. G.. Reversed. Hadley, IRE
versed upon the authority of appellant VS..
Holt, 155 Ind. 222.
1868. Indianapolis Street-railway Com
pany VS.. Robinson. Morgan c.. c. AT
hrmed. Bowling, il. The act of Feb. IL,
1899 (Acts 1899, p So, dispensing with the
allegation by plaintiff in personal injury
to the injury, is valid. 2. The Legislature
has the power to prescribe rules of plead
ing and evidence and methods of proof.
1000. L. E. & w. R. r. Co. VS.. ex rel.
city Of Muncie. Henry c. c. Dismissed.
1925. Neff VS.. Cordrey. Allen c. c. Re-
versed on confession of error.
Minute
1856; William T; MelOtt ct al. vs.: Chas.
brief on motion TO dismiss CD
New Case
1927. Justin Semon VS.. State of Indiana.
Madison G. G. Record Assignment of err
rors. Notices () below. Submitted under
Rule 10. Appellants brief 80
APPELLATE COURT.
SS41. Rohrer VS.. Burris. Kosciusko c. c..
Reversed. Robinson, il. The
object in constituting a will is to express
the intention Of the testatOr, and TO arrive
at the true meaning of a particular clause
the court will look to the whole will if
any light will thus be thrown on the clause
TO be construed. And If the testator's IN
tentiOn is doubtful, or the language used
is ambiguous, the court Will adopt that
construction which will cast the property
as the law would have cast it had no will
been made. 2. II a division Of property is
10 be made among near and remote heirs
the law favors a distribution per stripes
in preference to per capita. If the division
is 10 be made among persons standing in
the same degree of relationship the distri-
button will be per capita. 3. Where. by
an item in a will, property was beQueathed
as follows: Il will all the residue of my
estate, if any there shall be. to the two
daughters, Hannah and Sarah, daughters
of said David; and to the children OF my
brother John; and To the children Of my
said brother Jacob; TO have and share the
same in equal parts; the children of Elite,
daughter of Jacob, taking Jointly their
button should be made per capita
5gl6. Kuhn VS.. Boehne. Nanderburg S.
c. Affirmed. Wiley, G. THE final set
Element of an estate by the order OF court
is an adjudication of all matters therein
involved and such settlement cannot be
collaterally attacked. but must be set
aside by a direct proceeding
il66. Thacker VS.. C., /. K L. Ry. Co.
Monroe c c; Appellee ordered to file brief
AIS. Gross VS.. Board of Commissioners.
Wabash c. c. Certiorari granted and
issued.
u67. Adams vs.. Alexander. Marion c. c..
Motion to advance overruled.
an. Miller vs.. Brown. Adams c. G.
Same.
Minutes
4l66. Charles Thacker VS.. c, D. & l..
Railway Company. Monroe G. G. Appellee