The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-03
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


1873. Thomas VS.. Prudential ms. Co.
Clay c. G. Affirmed. Bowling, J.-Where a
complaint against a life insurance COM
pany discloses that the defendant has dis
charged its obligation under the policy
sued on by aymen to a person author
lied TO receive the insurance money il is
not error TO sustain a demurrer thereto.
1888. P~ittsburg, etc, Ry. Co. VS.. Gillespie.
Kosciusko c. G. Dismissed. Jordan, <. j.
A county surveyor, under the statute. in
making allOtments for keeping in repair a
public ditch acts in an administrative ca
pacity and an appeal by an aggrieved
party can be taken to the Circuit or SUI
perior courts, but appeal to the Appellate
Court is forbidden.
1913. WoOlfington VS.. Ritter. Delaware G.
c. Dismissed.
1890. Allen VS.. MCGEE. Monro c. C. Peti-
ton for reheaTing overruled.
1875. Bolton VS.. Clark. Parke G. G.. Ger
tiorari granted and issued.
1879. Demarsee VS.. Bridges. Johnson g.
G.. Petition to advance postponed until APP
pellant files brief.
Minutes
1915. Wallis B. Wheeler VS.. State of In.
diana. Warrick c. G. Appellants reply
1928. T. H. & I. Railroad Company VS.
State Of Indiana, w. A. Ketcham, attor-
ney general. Marion S. C.. Appellee's sug-
1865. Noah NJ. Clark VS.. State of Indiana.
Hancock c. c. Appellants brief 81
New Case
1881. Hugh F. Kreuter VS.. English Lake
Land Company. Starke c. c.. Record; as
signment of errors; notices 81 below; ap-
p~ellant's brief (S)
APPELLATE COURT.
H79. Pritchett VS.. Sheridan. Fountain c..
c. Affirmed. Black, misunderstanding
statements and the conduct of the party
making them implying admissions. are not
in the nature of impeaching evidence, for
which a foundation must be laid, but may
be regarded as representing actual facts.
1897. Asphalt Co. VS.. Robinson. Marion S.
c. Affirmed. ROby, il. An agent who
undertakes TO sell for a commission is not
required TO place the parties in such posi-
ton as that the contract is susceptible of
legal enforcement between them; he is en-
titled to claim the commission when he
finds a purchaser who is ready, willing and
able to buy. 2. When the directors of a pri-
vate corporation are all present and assent
to the execution of a contract, this is suffi-
Client, and a written contract may be en-
tered into without formal vote or a written
entry thereof by the directors.
1856. Boyd VS.. Scott. Wells G. G. Affirmed.
Henley, il. Where the evidence is con-
ficting. but justihes the verdict of the jury
the cause cannot be reversed upon the evil
dence. 2. instructions should be construed
together.
43O4. Malott VS.. Elk rel. Board of Commits
sioners. Clay e. G. Transferred to Supreme
Court.
S747. Citizens Street-railroad Company VS..
Heath. Hendricks c. c. Petition for re-
hearing OVerruled.
3179. Walker VS.. Wehking. Marion S. G.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
4274. Trentman VS.. Wahrenburg. Allen S.
c. Leave granted TO file brief.
Minutes
1851. Hettie X. Thompson VS.. Louisa II.
Jameson. Jackson c.. G.. Proof of publica-
ton.
1924. Elizabeth Goodwin VS.. Edwin b.
Bentley, executor. Clark c. c. Appellee's
brief 81
1910. Southern Indiana Railway Company
VS.. JOIN r. Davis. Martin c. c.. Appel
lant's brief 9)