The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-06-29
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

19451. Wilson VS.. State of Indiana. Shell
by c. c. Petition for rehearing overruled
per curtain. /. 1t is the duty Of an appel
liant to examine the record and see that IT
is correct before ii is filed, and. if IL is in
correct, take timely steps to correct the err
rors. 2. The mere fact that appellee does
not consider in his argument a defect In the
transcript does not require the court to dis
regard the infrmity and determine ques-
tons not in the record on account of the
defect in the transcript. 3. Merely copying
a motion for a new trial In a bill of excep-
tions does not bring the same into or make
it a part of the record.
1e45S. Eureka, etc, Company VS.. Bluff.
Baker, jim an appeal from an fnterlocu-
tory order refusing TO appoint a receiver
the affidavits and evidence must be made a
part of the record by a bill of exceptions.
1854. Armstrong VS.. Hufty. Carroll c. c.
Petition for rehearing overruled per cur
lam. Questions not presented by briefs or
oral argument cannot be considered on a
petition for rehearing.
1895. Manufacturers, etc, Company VS..
Indiana. etc, Company. Grant c. c. Petit
ton for rehearing overruled per curtain.
In a complaint seeking to enjoin the trans
portation of natural gas through defend
ants pipes at a pressure exceeding the nat
ural rock pressure, the complaint should
allege that an unnatural flow OF gas fol-
lows from the use of machinery or artificial
pressure.
1872. st. Joseph. etc. Company VS.. Globe.
etc. Company. Elkhart c. c. Petition for
III AAe wv
1884. Stewart VS.: Adams. ETC.. Company.
Huntington c. c. Rehearing granted.
Heintz VS.. Mueller. Porter c. c. Appli-
cation for. transfer to Supreme Court de-
Is475. ELAN VS.. Sexton. Laporte C. c.
Transferred to Appellate Court.
way aSSOS Company. FOUNTAIN c. c. same.
1851. Hanna vs. Mclaughlin. Jay G. c.
1854. Horner VS.. Mcconnell. Lagrange
c. C.. Same.
1855. White VS.. Furgeson. Jackson c. c.
Same.
1926. WEIGHT VS.. State. Steuben C. C.
Same.
Minutes
1864. Sarah A. Hibben VS.. William E.
smith ct al. Marion S. c. Appellants re-
1882. Chicago & Southeastern Railway
Company VS.. Charles Kenney ct al. Clay
c. c. Appeliees' petition for leave to file
brief.
Company VS.. Charles f.. Taylor. Shelby
c.. c. Appellee's petition for extension.
1885. Alfred Guthrie VS.. AIDA T. How
tition for extension Of time to file reply
brief. Appellants petition for oral argu-
ment.
Oral Argument
194sf. State ex rel. Wood VS.. Consumers
Gas Trust Company. Oct. 3, 1901, 10 a. m.
APPELLATE COURT.
ss49. Mason VS.. Ratclif r. Company.
Howard C. c. Affirmed. Robinson, Jan
applicant for license 10 sell intoxicating
liquors is bound to show that he is within
the statutory requirements as to age. char
acter. residence, ETC., before he Is entitled
TO such license.
1913. Stabno VS.. Leeds. Laporte c. c. Al
hrmed per curtain. Where the record con-
tains no conclusion Of law TO a special find
ing of facts, which is not signed by the
Judge, such finding must be treated as only
a general one. 2. A ground in a motion
%nr a pAuy trial that Hfha fn1fny and falo-
ment of the court is excessive in AMOUNT
presents no question where the action is on
contract.
s7ss. Bingham VS.. Marion TT. Company.
Marion c. G. Affirmed. Comstock. III. A
receiver OF an insolvent building and loan
association, upon settling with sharehold-
ers upon distribution, should examine the
account of each shareholder and apply the
rule Of mutually and equity thereto. and II
a shareholder be found 10 nave received
money In payment OF a partial withdrawal
when such association was insolvent, the
amount so paid shall be treated as an ad-
vance TO him and subtracted from the
amount of his distribution share based
upon the face of his stock before such par
tial withdrawal. In examining the account
of a shareholder with the association. IL the
receiver finds that dividends have been paid
such shareholder when none could be legal
~ paid. amounts paid as dividends should
be treated as and are liens against the
stock OF such stockholders, and said
mounts should be retained by the receiver
from the share OF such shareholder upon
distribution. ,. A paid-up s~tockholder In a
building association Is liable for his share
Of losses OF an insolvent association, al
though he gave notice of withdrawal In
compliance with the bylaws before the APP
pointment of a receiver for the association.
1886. Chicago, etc. Railroad Company VS..
Richards. Warren c. c. Affirmed. Black.
c. il. To render a railroad company liza
BILE TO an employee under the employers la
bility act IL is not necessary that the In
jured person should have been an employe
upon or connected with the train in charge
e fha naraan 10 whom the naRIlUanHa & at