The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-24
HIGH COURT DECISIONS.
Validity of the Mechanics Lien Law
BODY of a Dead Dog.

The constitutionality of the mechanics
lien law was affirmed in the case of
Charles Z. Barrett vs. Frank II. Millikan
by the Supreme Court yesterday. Barrett
resisted satisfaction Of a lien which he dis
covered on his house after he had paid
the contractor for constructing il. He
urged that the mechanics lien law denies
land owners equal protection of the laws,
and d~eprives them of their property with
out due process; also that it impairs the
obligation OF contracts by forcing the real
estate owner to become liable TO persons
with whom they have no contract rela-
tons; and IL is class legislation in the in
terest of people performing certain kinds
of work and men dealing in certain kinds
of supplies. Tn case was decided by Chief
Justice Bowling. who said in his opinion
that these matters should have been urged
upon the Legislature that passed the law
rather than upon the court that constructs
1t. The Judge suggested that an owner
might escape paying twice for a building
by Withholding the amount due on the
contract until the time for filing a lien
had expired. The court also said that the
law is not class legislation since anybody
may bring himself within its provisions
if he chooses.
The Appellate Court decided Yesterday i'm
the case of Ralph MCGEE against Jacob
Vantreese that the dead body of a dog
may be recovered by the animals owner
through a replevin proceeding. Van Treese
kept a number of dogs which were sus-
pected by MCGEE OF killing his sheep. Nc
Gee lay in wait and killed one of the ami
mails as II leaped over a fence into his
pasture. Van Treese brought an action in
replevin 10 secure the dogs body for iden-
tifcation i'm order that he might lay the
foundation for a criminal action against
MCGEE. Van Treese was awarded one cent
damages and the possession of the dog in
a justices court, but the Circuit Court
held that a dog was not personal property
and could not, therefore. be replevined.
The decision was reversed by the Appellate
Court. THROWN a large amount of costs
on the appellee.
The Appellate Court. speaking through
Judge Robinson, yesterday, In affirming
the case OF Laura tzmes against
George A. Spitzmesser, said that cruel and
inhuman treatment justifying the granting
of a divorce Is proved In allegation as fol-
lows: That the wife was frequently cross
and scolded and upbraided her husband
without cause; that she occasionally refused
to speak 10 him for a week; that she would
get angry and destroy the dishes and house
hold utensils; that she would leave home
for as long as a week at a time, COM
Polling her husband TO perform household
as well as farm duties; and that she sold
the crops and wasted the proceeds. The
court suggested that these charges might
have been made more specific. but if they
We're proved a divorce should be granted.
James n. OdSktl ; allowance Oh a Claim
against the Board OF Commissioner of
Decatur county for final payment for sta
tionery furnished the county officers was
reversed by the Appellate Court yester-
day. Caskey entered into the contract I'm
1891 without the formality having been
observed Of securing estimates from county
officers of amounts Of stationery probably
needed by them and letting bids for the
same, but no one objected to the allow
ance Of the claim until the last quarter
ly payment fell due. Then an appeal was
- L. H.. G4rn,ta " NNrfDht -.ALfbttS1.
county chairman and political enemy of
Caskey, who was Republican county chair
man. The Decatur Circuit Court upheld
the claim, but the Appellate Court de-
cIared a contract for stationery entered
into illegally would not justify an allow
ance from the county treasury.
The Supreme Court, I'm affirming the case
of lane NJ. Keys ct al. against Elizabeth
Wright. yesterday declared that heirs who
take possession of property willed to them,
understanding the reasons for which the
will might be contested. are estopped from
afterwards maintaining a contest proceed
ing.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower
court in the case of William H.. Bent. re-
ceiver of the Wabash Soap Company.
against Thomas Underdown and others.
The soap company stockholders organized
with $4,000 authorized capital, and Is per
cent. of this was paid in. The company
did a losing busines and piled up debts
~aggregating about twenty thousand dol
lars. and then went into MIR. Bent's hands
as receiver. Suit was begun by the re-
ceiver against the stockholders TO collect
the unpaid subscriptions OF IS per cent. OF
the authorized capital. but the stockhold-
ers set up the defense that they had an
agreement that they were not to be liable
beyond the 10 per cent. The directors. in
the course OF business. borrowed large
sums OF money and went on the notes as
surety, and as the factory plant was prac-
tically worthless. the directors could re-
coup themselves only by the collection OF
the unpaid stock subscriptions. Judge
Wiley, who tried the case In the Wabash