The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-06-19

" adSWOrtn. Elkndrt =. I. 1rdnsleIIeu W
1855 Tucker VS. White Johnson c. c.
Transferred TO Appellate Court.
1850. Hewitt VS.. Mills. Whitley c. c.
Transferred TO Appellate Court
1880 Monteith VS.. Kokomo, etc, Co.
Howard S. c. Transferred TO Appellate
Court.
1868 Ludwig VS. Cory Hancock C. c.
Transferred to Appellate Court
1862 Old Wayne, etc, Association VS..
Flynn. Marion S. C. Transferred TO APP
pellate Court.
Minutes
1855. John Gross VS. Board of Commits
sioners of Whitley county. Wabash c. c.
Appellee's petition for extension of time to
file brief
land ct al. Martin c. c. Appellees' brief 81
1856 Sanders Hubbard VS.. Eph. L. Goss
ct al. Morgan c. c. Appellants brief 50
1884 Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville
Railway Company ct al: VS.. Marilda A.
Martin, Administrative. Greene c. c. APP
pellants' reply brief 80
New Case
1886 Samuel a. Wray VS.. James w.
Fry ct al Hancock c. G. Record As
signment of errors. In term. Bond
Oral Arguments
1852 Demarest VS.. Holdeman. Friday
June q, 10 a. m.
1897. Brown ct al VS. Glow ct al. Fri
day, June rs.
APPELLATE COURT.
1869 Martin VS.. Board of Commissioners.
Montgomery G. G. Affirmed. Robinson, j.
/. A person seeking to enforce a claim
against a county for services must either
show a valid contract for such services or
a statute providing for such services and
directing compensation. III is not enough
TO simply show the beneficial character of
the services. And If a contract is relied
upon, ii must be made to appear that the
officer aking ii had the authority to act.
2. A person dealing with the agent of a
municipality must take notice of the limit
of DC hot hnF no
authority assumed is within the statute.
3. Section 67lS, Burns 1894, makes the
board of commissioners of each county a
board of health ex officio for the county.
and makes il the duty of the board Ito
protect the public health by the removal of
causes of disease, when known, and in all
cases to take prompt action to arrest the
spread of contagious diseases, TO abate and
remove nuisances dangerous to the public
health and perform such other duties as
may from time to time be required of them
by the State Board of Health, pertaining to
the health OF the people They shall, an
nually, at their first meeting in December.
elect a secretary, who shall be the execu-
tive officer of the board and who shall serve
as such health officer for one year from the
LIST of January next ensuing his election.
He shall receive such compensation from
the town. city or county treasury, respect
lively, as the board electing him may deter
mine" Under this statute the County
Board of Health has authority to protect
the public health, and such expenses as are
eft should be borne by the public.
A. The secretary of the County Board of
Health has no authority to incur an indebt-
edness for which the county may be held.
in the absence of some action by the board.
1858. Lair Ulmer. Knox G. c. Re-
versed. Comstock, j.
l. II party goes TO trial without a rul-
ing on his demurrer, IL is but waiver of a
right he might have insisted upon.
Q 1t does not necessarily follow from the
fact that no memorandum OF a levy ap-
90 he rlnnf
levy was made.
g. Where a sheriff gives the statutory
notice of the sale of real estate. IL is suf-
ficient notice that il has been levied upon
and will be sold for the satisfaction of the
judgment.
A. A person is bound to take notice of a
judgment against him and that his prop
erty is advertised for sale TO satisfy an
execution issue thereon.
s. The right of exemption is a personal
privilege and may be waived.
G. Under Section 2642. Burns. 1885,. the
husband OF deceased wife has ninety days
after the probate of the wifes will TO ac-
cept its provisions.
Court. Affirmed. Wiley, p j.
l. Section 209O. Burns, 1894 specifies three
distinct acts, either of which, Ii properly
charged, will make the affidavit or indict-
ment good against a motion to quash.
2 In an affidavit charging fornicatiou
the offense need not be defined any more
particularly than in the words of the
statute.
3S39 City of Greensburg VS.. Zoler. De-
catur c. c. Reversed. Roby, j.
l. The statute calls for a conclusion OF
law upon the special finding of facts made
and brevity of the conclusion of law is to
be commended.
2 Section 1898, Burns, 1894. gives the
owner of land affected by a sewer improve
ment a right 10 be heard. and the right 10
be heard carries with IL the right to relief
3. The Common Council Is the exclusive
tribunal TO determine when and what prop
erty is benefited by sewer improvement
ard it's action is subject to review collater-
ally for fraud or corruption.
4. Whether a sewer is local or general is
question which must be decided in the
first instance by the Common Council. and
decision made is final against a collatera
attack.
5. The right to construct sewers is Incl
dental 10 the power Of a municipal corpora
ton to maintain streets.
S7l4- Moore vs.. Pittsburg Plate Glass
Company. Howard S. c. Affirmed. NJ
opinion. Per curtain.
1857. Jaqua VS.. Jaqua. Jay c. c. Dis
347 Barnhart VS. Godstein. Jay c. C
Petition for rehearing overruled.
Minutes
3735. Board of Commissioners. etc. vs.
Gabriel Godfrey. Miami G. G. Appellee'S
petition for rehearing and brief go APP
file additional copies of brief. etc.
1857. Alonzo L. Jaqua et al. VS.. Susie R
Jaqua; Jay c G Appellants dismissal
36i7. Thomas o. Mccoy VS.. Kokonlo Rail.
way and Light Company. Howard 5. c.
Appellees brief tSD
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room John l.. McMaster. Judge
| German Fire Insurnce Company VS. Johr
| 2. Leyendecker ct al: foreclosure. on tria
1 by court.
Harry Z. Hamilton VS.. Carl w. Menden.