The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-09
THE COURT RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


19449 Clay Township VS. Manson Head.
Hamilton g. G. Appeal dismissed. Opinion
per curtain. This court has power to
consider a record as presenting questions
for decision unless 1t becomes authenti-
Gated as required by Section $40, Revised
Statutes, 1881, and in the absence of GER
tificate 10 the transcript over the signature
of the clerk and the seal of the court that
the same is true, an appeal must be dis
missed
1901. John Reagan, trustee, ct al VS..
The First National Bank ct al Marion 5.
G. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Jordan, il. Where the officers of an in
solvent company executed chattel mort
gage to secure certain creditors and in or
der to obtain the consent of holders of
preferred stock to the execution of such
mortgage gave the notes of such corpora
be assigned to the company, and included
these notes among the claims secured by
such mortgage, providing therein the pri-
GRITTY OF payment as between them and the
other claims secured, their action in thus
attempting to give preferred stockholders
preference over creditors was so far fraud
ulent as TO make the mortgage void as TO
the preferred stockholders, and the pro-
visions creating priorities far infected
the whole mortgage as TO make ii void in
Its entirety. 2. Any attempt, either direct
ly indirectly, to give the holders of pre-
ferred stock a preference over creditors
is illegal and fraud upon the rights of
the creditors. s. Where the act of per-
son necessarily operates to defraud cred
itors or results in a fraud upon their rights
the actor will be presumed to have in
tended the fraud which resulted. A. Per-
sons who have accepted the provisions of
written instrument cannot assert its lille
gality regards certain provisions and
insist on the enforcement of their pro-
visions which would be modified by holding
the first illegal. D. Persons who accepted,
without inquiry, the provisions of a chattel
mortgage giving them preference, will
be charged with notice of facts they might
have learned by inquiry.
1867. Frank Bird Transfer Company ct
oil x inc DTin pnfff TO a
vance denied.
1856. Mellott ct al. VS. Messmore Clin-
ton &C. Transferred to Appellate Court.
APPELLATE COURT.
SS43 Sarah A. Rapp VS.. Sarah X Lesher
Miami G. G. Affirmed Robinson, il. The
simple allegation that husband purchased
land with his wife's money and took title
in himself does not establish a trust in
the wife's favor in the absence of any
showing that the conveyance to him was
without the wife'S consent or that ii was
fraudulently made or that it was in viola
ton of any trust or that there any
bona fide agreement that he should hold
the land in trust for her. 2 The allega-
ton that landowner by a written ante
nuptial agreement, settled upon his chill
dren by his former wife all his estate to
be taken by them at his death pleads a
mere conclusion. g. The execution of an
ante-nuptial contract by landowner pro-
viding that his wife shall not share in his
property at his death but the same shall go
to his children, does not. in the absence of
words of conveyance, affect his ownership
of such property nor his power 10 sell it
and give her the proceeds. 4. An exception
to a conclusion OF law not taken till long
after such conclusion was announced and
entered Of record presents no question.
$40. Solomon Meyers VS.. Indiana Ma
tional Bank. Marion S. c. Affirmed.
Roby, J.-Where one person loaned money
to another who fraudulently represented
himself to bear different name and to be
the owner of real estate belonging to a
man of that name on which he gave a
mortgage, and the lender gave such Dor
| rover check payable to the person whom
he represented himself to be- which check
was paid to him by the bank. such lender
must bear the loss and cannot hold the
| bank liable for the money paid
3771. Ann f. Wood vs.. William Ripley
| Marion c. G. Affirmed. Wiley. AN an
| swer which alleges that defendant and his
| successive grantors have openly, cOntinu-
| ously and VIGOROUSLY held exclusive pos
| session of certain real estate. claiming 10
own the same for more than twenty years
sufficiently alleges title on defendant 10
constitute a good answer to a suit for the
recovery OF such real estate by the daugh-
| ter of former owner who claims as heir
/ of her father interest alleged to have
| belonged to his second wife during her life.
| time.
| $685. Soules VS.. Robinson ct al CLAW C.
c. Petition for rehearing overruleS
3737 Davis ct al. VS.. Davis, adminiStra.
| tor Madison 9. G. Affirmed per curiam.
1850 Kaufman ct AL. executors. VS. Pres.
ton. Noble c. c. Motion to dismiss over.
| rfr1a1