The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-03-27
THE COURT RECORD.
COURT.

cities the power TO regulate the running OF
trains through cities and the yards of rail-
road companies situate within the corporate
limits. 2. The fact that the tracks of a rail-
read company used by it in the operation
or It's road may be situated on its own prop
erty Will not alone be sufficient to relieve
the company of obedience TO the require
ments OF reasonable police regulations.
8. 1t is the duty of a railroad company
TO obey a city ordinance enacted To safe
guard the lives and property Of persons,
and the failure of such company by its
quirements OF such ordinance is negligence
per sc. A. Where an employe of such compa-
ny Is rightfully upon the track. engaged in
his line of duty, he has the right to assume
that the company, in the movement of its
trains, will be controlled by the require
ments of a city ordinance regulating the
running OF trains through the city, and the
fact that, while at work. he does not look
and listen" for approaching trains does not
constitute negligence per sc.
1896. Forebaugh VS.. Gregg. Fulton G. -.
Reversed. Hadley, il. In the bill of ex-
ceptions explaining the evidence the things
essential are that it shall appear from the
dence and was presented to the proper
judge for settlement and signature within
the time granted by the law or by the court,
and that the same was signed by the Judge
and filed with the clerk in open court.
2 The request to the clerk to incorporate
the original bill of exceptions into the
transcript, instead of a copy, may be either
written or oral, and where the original ap-
pears, in the absence of anything to the
contrary this court must presume that the
clerk discharged his duty and incorporated
IL upon the subsequent oral request of APP
pellant. 3. In affixing the signature of the
| judge TO a bill of exceptions, it implies an
affirmation of all the things enjoined by
law. 4. The recitals at the opening of a bin
CT exceptions are a part of the bill. 5. The
statute does not authorize the destruction of
any uncounted voted ballot. 6. A distin-
gushing mark that will invalidate a ballot
Is such a one as fairly imputeS upon its
face design and a dishonest purpose. The
| clioht CnffnO Of a ha llnf which hlx
appears TO have been the result of accident
or var Of due care is not sufficient to con-
denim it, if otherwise fair.
1881. Morris VS.. Wills. Boone G. G. Dis
missed.
1883. Wolf VS.. Line. Kosciusko c.. c.. Dis
i954S. Turner VS.. Heimberg. Porter c.. c.
Publication ordered and issued.
1906. State Of Indiana VS.. Flynn. Tippe-
canoe c. G. Advanced.
1905. Board of Commissioners VS.. God
frey. Miami c. c. Transferred to Appel
late Court.
1870. Turner VS.. Van Cleve. Delaware
1885. Davis VS.. Davis. Madison c. c.
Same.
1887. p, c.. c. & St. L. Ry. Co. VS.. Greb.
1899 Hollingsworth VS.. McCally. Newton
c. c. Same.
1890. Guethler VS.. Altman. Huntington c.
1892. Rogers VS.. Shoemaker. vigo C. C,
Same.
1899 Link VS.. Deerlng. DaViess L. G.
Same.
1895. spitzmesser VS.. Spitzmesser. Madi-
1897. Kinsey Co. VS.. Boyce. Marion C. c
Same.
1899 Covert VS.. Brag. vanderburg S. c
10000, p, c.. c. & St: L. Ry. Co. VS.. Motifs
ker. Madison c.. C. Same.
Hendricks c. c. Same.
1906. Baldwin VS.. Rich. Hamilton C. G
1soss. Pulse VS.. Osborn. Decatur c. C
Same.
1917. Dougan VS.. Sipe. Randolph C. C
1876. Bogue VS.. Bennett Grant C. c
Same.
1864. L. S. & NJ. S. Ry. Co. VS.. Butts
Is, 400. Bonham VS.. McGrath. Blackford C
1862. Jack VS.. White. Marshall c. c.. Same
Minutes
1882. State ex rel. VS.. William X. Windl,
ct al. Huntington c. c. Appellees' petition
and brief () for rehearing.
1858; Huntington County Loan and Say
ings Association vs.; Mary E. Fulk. Hunt
1876. Edward Bogue ct al. VS.. Claude NJ
Bennett. Grant c. G. Appellee's reply t.
appellants supplemental brief 90.
Indiana. Madison c.. c.. Appellee's brief.
APPELLATE COURT.
3243. Kern VS.. Ravenscroft. st. JOSEPH
{. Z. Petition for rehearing overruled
Henly, c. 1.-The law does not authorize
bringing into the record without copyins
any paper filed in the cause except tn,
stenographer's long-hand manuscript of tn,
evidence.
1880. Mccormick. ETC., VS.. Yoeman
Daviess c. G. Reversed. Wiley. J.@i
Where the maker of a promissory not,
agrees with the payer that If the lattei
definite time he will pay the same a
the expiration of said period, and the tim,
is extended. such promise of the make
constitutes a new contract. binding In Law
and capable of enforcement, though tn,
maker may have had a good defense L
such note before the agreement to extent
was made. 2. Where a written contrac
is made oral warranties and implied war
ranties and all oral negotiations ar,
merged in the written contract and by 1t
terms the parties must be bound.
334L. st. John VS.. Stafford. Delaware c
c. Reversed. Robinson, J.-This cause 1
reversed upon authority of The America
Credit Indemnity Company VS.. Ellis. No
1885. decided by the Supreme Court Feb. 20
s4os. Evansville. etc, r; c.. VS.. Butts
Clay G. G. Reversed. Comstock. Il
To entitle an abutting land owner to re
cover costs incurred for labor and materia
IN the construction of a fence along tn
right of way of a railroad, under Section
1924. Burns's 1894, the duty of the railroa,
TO fence the right of way must be mad
to appear. 2. Where there is an excep
ton or condition in a law imposing a dut
or giving a right of action. the complain
based upon such law must negative the ex
ception or condition.
3443. Moore VS.. Harrison. Hamilton {
c.. Affirmed. Henley. c.. il. Anti-nup
tial contracts are favored by the law. L
such contracts no formality is required
and a liberal construction will be give
them, in every case giving effect, IL nos
sible, to the intention of the parties.
Parties contemplating marriage may orall
agree as TO the disposition Of their prou
erty, and may confirm such agreement n
D writing after marriage. and II is not neces
' sary to their validity that anything shout
, have been paid by the wife to the hus
band. or that the consideration should b
] stated I'm the contract. 3. Marriage is
: sufficient consideration for a contrac
? whereby the husband valves any interes
In his wifes estate in the event he sur
wives her.
( 34i9. Jones VS.. Austin. DekaIb c.. c. Al
frmed. Black. il. A sale and transfe
of property by one partner to the othe
and agreement of q creditor 20 accent sue
l partner TO whom the property Is trans
ferred as the sole debtor. 2 An agree
ment between partners. at dissolution q
J the partnership. that the continuing parl
: ner shall assume and pay the partnershI
4 debts may be made by parol. but such A
agreement will not bind a firm creditor ur
I less he becomes a party thereto. Ru
: where there is such asserre
10 by the firm creditor who agrees to loo
to the partner assuming the payment {
the partnership debts alone, upon a sul
ficient consideration. the retiring partne
will be discharged. 3. Where by a mer
: accident the jury Is allowed 10 take IN
written instructions to its room insfea
or interrogatories propounded 20 the fr~'