The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-05-30
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


1920. Rosenthal VS.. Rambo. Marion s..
c. Transferred TO Appellate Court.
1921. City of Huntington VS.. Townsend.
h isass. Carr : vs. IS. Soah. Decatur c. c.
Same.
1927. G.. c., c. & St. L. Ry. Co. VS..
Kepler. Wayne c. C. Same.
1929. Home, etc, Co. vs.. Friends Church.
Hamilton c.. c.. Same.
1880. Gowdy, etc. CO. VS.. Pattison- Rush
c. c. Same.
1919. Boyd VS.. schopp. Wells C. C.
1898. Jaqua VS.. Jaqua. Jay C. c.
1895. Hollingsworth VS.. c.. l. & L. Try.
Co. Clark c. c. Same.
1884. Dillingham; VS.. Parkes. Marshall
c; G: Same; ,un,,s u,,.,s-
Is445. Racer VS.. International. etc.. Assn.
Jay c. c. Same.
Minutes
1866. Sheridan Brick Works VS. Marion
Trust Co., administrator. Marion 5. G..
Appellees' brief 80.
APPELLATE COURT.
$3.50. c.. c., c. & ST. l.. Ry. Co. VS.. Voght.
Marion s. c. Reversed. COmstock, j.
/. In an action for damage on account
OF injuries received by the negligence Of
the defendant an averment that an in
jury was caused solely By the wrong
fitness, carelessness ana negligence Of the
defendant. and without any fault on the
pdll III HI alnll nAC liz az Gll@L
way connected with the specific acts of
negligence charged and no reference Is
made to any act OF negligence before men
toned, In 10 way aids the complaint. >
Merely because a railroad engine negligent
ly approaches a crossing and a traveller
is injured. it does not necessarily follow
the negligence. 3. To render a master
liable for the negligent act of his servant
1t is necessary 10 show that the act COM
planned of was committed by the servant
uhilA N q a God In the service of fha master
and in some way connected with the doing
OF the service.
1905. Hay VS.. Mcdaniel: Clark c. c:
Reversed. Roby. il. The purpose OF
Section l245 Burns, 1890 is to allow an
immediate appeal from an order appoint
ing a receiver, but it does not exclude
judgment from fully considering all ques-
tons necessary TO a full and complete
disposition of the case, including therein
the action relative 10 the appointment of
a receiver. 2. At common law a receiver
cannot be appointed upon complaint OF
a remainder man to take charge OF. col
lect the rents and repair real estate held
by a life tenant. nor is there any statute
authorizing such appointment
S761. c., l. & f. Ry. Co. VS.. Weeks.
Grant c.. c. Affirmed. Black, il. To
court in overruling a motion for a change
OF venue 1t must first be presented as q
cause for a new trial. ?. Error in refus-
ing a motion for a new venire must be
presented in a motion as a cause for a
new trial and not an independent assign
ment of error. 8. In n proceeding for tn.
condemnation of a right of way for a rail
road company of a portion of the land
OF another. the damages properly assess
able to the land owner are measured by
the value of the land appropriated. and
any Injury to the residue of his land
naturally or reasonably resulting from tn,
| appropriation for such q purpose. and no
arising from negligence, unskillfulness OF
wrongful conduct of the appropr,atinG
| company. 4. A verdict. unless so uncertain
or ambiguous that no Judgment can b.
rendered upon 1t. may be made to serve by
| the court.
e6ta. Soules w. Robinson. Clay c. G