The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-05-10

a receiver that the defendant be shown
10 be insolvent. 4. In order TO justify this
court In disturbing judgment of the lower
court in any case or proceeding, upon the
evidence alone the latter must be such as
to raise question Of law and not one
merely of fact
lSsoS. Maynard VS.. Waidlich. Whitley c.
c. Affirmed. Monks. il. Where a de-
murrer alleged that THE defendant
demurs 10 the second, third and fourth
paragraphs of plaintiffs reply TO the sec
ond paragraph of the answer of the said
defendant, etc." it is joint and not several.
2. Where all the conclusions OF law are
excepted TO in gross, and are challenged
jointly by an assignment of error, all the
conclusions must be erroneous or such
assignment will fail. g. A motion to restate
the conclusions of law is not recognized
by our code of procedure. 4. When there is
any objection 10 a judgment rendered upon
verdict or general findings OF a court, a
motion to modify the same must be made
in the trial court before any question can
be presented in this court concerning the
same. But when there is a special hnding
and conclusions of law thereon and the
! judgment is rendered in conformity with
| the conclusions of law, exception to
each conclusion Of law Is the proper
remedy. 5. Nothing except the evidence
and questions concerning the competency
| of witnesses, and the admssibility of evil
| dence, can be brought TO this court by an
| original bill of exceptions: when. how
| ever such bill contains matters which can
not be brought To this court in that man
| ner, only the evidence will be considered.
%. n
marriage is prevented by Section 264l,
! Burns, 1894, from conveying by deed or
mortgage the real estate received and held
| by her by virtue OF her previous marriage,
| so long as there are children by such mar
| riage, their descendants alive; but even
| if purchaser of such real estate during
| said subsequent cOVerture acquires no title
| thereto, yet If he brings an action against
such vendors TO quiet his title to said real
estate and RECEIVERS judgment against them
| uuieting his title thereto, such judgment
| iS they
| thereafter question the title OF such pur-
/ chases to such real estate. Z. A judgment is
| conclusive against the parties TO the same,
| and those claiming under them, as 10 all
matters that were or might have been liti-
| gated in the action under the issues. s. In
an action 10 foreclose a mortgage, the
validity of the mortgage and the power
| and capacity of the mortgageors or either
| of them to execute 1t. are in issue, and
when the same is foreclosed the power and
| capacity of the mortgageors TO execute the
same the right TO foreclose il and sell the
| land therein described are conclusively ad-
| Indicated. whether the judgment and de-
| cree of foreclosure were by default or
| otherwise. O. The conclusions Of judgment
| recovered in a case where the court had
| jurisdiction OF the pafues ana tne supJe &C.,
matter OF the action, is not affected by
| the insufiiciency of the pleading upon
| which il was rendered.
1864. Board OF Commissioners vs.. Board
| of Commissioners. Delaware c. c. Trans
| ferred to Appellate Court.
| 1916. Reeves VS.. Bisselberg. Lake c. G.
Delaware c. c. Transferred TO Appellate
Court.
1921 Layman VS.. Buck. Greene c. c.
| Transferred TO Appellate Court.
1917. p, c., c. & st. /. Railway Co VS..
Parish. Wayne G. G. Transferred 10 APP
| pelate Court.
1881. Trittipo VS.. Trittipo Hamilton C. c.
Leave to amend transcript denied.
Minutes
1884 James +. Brown VS.. John Gra-
/ ham. Appellants brief on motion to dis
'' APPELLATE COURT.
1865. Penner VS. Simon. Noble c. c. AZ
| firmed Black, 1.-THE statute prescribing
the cases in which a new trial may be
granted i'm civil action does not recognize
as a cause for a new trial the reason that
"the judgment OF the court Is contrary 10
the evidence the judgment OF the
| court Is not sustained by the evidence in
this cause. the judgment Of the
| court is contrary TO law"
3Ol7. Sahner VS. Sahner. Grant s. c. Re-
| versed Henley. c. J.-Where an attach
ment proceeding is begun by plaintiff in a
| divorce proceeding and the divorce is
| granted and judgment rendered without
bringing the defendant in the attachment
| proceedings into court the Judgment in
the divorce proceeding, being the main
action. settles all matters in issue between
the parties. and the attachment and gar
nishment proceeding cannot afterWard be
opened up so as TO render judgment there
on in the absence of a continuance of that
part of the proceedings
s77S Williams VS.. City of indianapolis
| Marion - y j.
| board having control OF the hospital Of the
city Of Indianapolis acts only IN a gov
| ernmental way. II acts for the public an
not as the agent of the municipality in its
corporate character, and the city Is not
liable for the mistreatment or person
while in the hospital as a patient
3774 c.. !. q =. Railway Co. Us. Winslow.
Madison s. c. Affirmed Robinson. il. II
finding is imperfect, irregular. un-
| certain ambiguous or contradictory. the
remedy is by d motion for a venire de
novo and not by a motion for trial
on the ground that the finding Is contrary
10 law and not sustained BY the evidence.
. This court will not disturb the judgment
4 on account OF insufficiency OF evidence
when there is some evidence TO sustain IL.
2 In estimating damages 10 real estate on
account of the construction OF railroad
n Is proper 10 consider the damages 10 the
drainage Of the land resulting from the
construction Of the road; but future bene-
fits that may accrue TO the land owner
from the construction and operation OF
the road are 10 be excluded.
1850 Dongan Sipe. Randolph G. &.
Appeal dismissed.
as kaufman VS.. Miller. Lake S. c. APP
pIication for certiorari overruled.
Minutes
1850 John r. Dugan VS.. Nancy Sipe. Ap-
- pellant's dismissal. One hundred and for