The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-28
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


1885 Davis VS.. Chase White c c. At
frmed in part and reversed in part Gill
lett. IA contract between attorney and
client which limits the client TO settlement
with the opposite party in the presence
of his attorney is void. ?. In an action
to set aside conveyance as fraudulent
and subject the land TO payment of plant
IFS claim judgment creditors of the de-
PENDANT may be made defendants g. A
CROSSE complaint which merely alleges that
the codefendant at the time of the filing
subject to execution ''of which these plant
ifs have any knowledge is insufficient
against the wife of the defendant
1892 Masters VS.. Jones. Clinton c. G..
Affirmed Jordan, IA guardian of an
insane person may employ the near rela-
tives of the latter to take care of and
nurse him during his ailment ard at the
death of the ward his estate is liable for
such care and nursing, and when the
amount of such compensation has not been
| fixed il is for the court to determine, and
presented against the guardianship before
its termination is no defense TO their being
claims against the deceased wards estate.
1856 Downham VS.. Holloway. Hamilton
G. G.. Reversed Monks, IA deed of a
person of unsound mind is only voidable,
and so long as the grantor remains of un-
sound mind he has no power to affirm or
disaffirm such deed. 2 Such deed may be
disaffrmed by the heirs of such insane
person after his death, and the statute of
limitations begins TO run against them
from the time of his death.
1884 Pease VS. Christian. LaDorte c..
c. Affirmed Jordan. THE reasonable
monument placed at the grave of a de-
ceased person may be considered as a part
of his funeral expenses. the amount being
left to the sound discretion of the trial
1885 Wink VS. Work Marshall c. c.
Affirmed. Bowling. J.-Where a person
owns real estate and constructs buildings
thereon and the whole premises are used
for a home and school for orphans and
INDECENT children, trained and competent
nurses and teachers being employed there
for, such premises are not subject to tax
1856. Sauer VS.. schenk. Vanderburg c.
c. Affirmed Hadley, i'm partition
causes issues may be found so as to estab-
fish and quiet the title among the parties
but in the absence of such issues there
can be no adjudication beyond the divi-
1887. Mccoy vs. Kokomo Railway and
Light Company. Howard S. c. Reversed.
Gillett. i'll. To enable party to success
fully interpose special findings of the jury
upon particular questions of fact as a
reason for judgment in his favor against
a general verdict. he must have special
findings that stand in such clear antag-
Onism to the general verdict that the two
cannot coeXist. 2. Where interrogatories
contradict each other they work destruction
among themselves and do not impair the
general verdict.
1854 Horner VS.. Lowe. Cass c. G Re
versed C;ilett, il. When a party re-
ceives a deed into his possession and he
has il recorded il is an acceptance by him.
? When deed has been delivered and
accepted it is deemed, in the absence of
fraud or such mistake as equity will re-
heve against, as a complete REIMBURSEMENT
of conflicting reservations in any prior eX-
ecutory contract relative to the convey
ance. g. In the absence of fraud or relia-
bic mistake. the grantee who accepts
deed without covenants cannot successfully
defend against a suit for the purchase
money the ground of failure of title.
1887. Roberts VS. Indianapolis Street
railway Company. Marion s. G.. Affirmed.
Jordan. J.-Where person overexerts him
self so as to become injured III turning a
car upon turn-table his own exertion is
such contributory negligence as will bar
recovery for the injury.
1852. Berry VS.. c.. l. q L. Ry. Co Clark
c. c. Affirmed. Monks. J.-Where the
precipe does not request the clerk TO GER
ing the evidence. nor does the certificate
of the clerk include il, and no entry in the
proceedings shows the filing with the clerk
or in open court after IL was signed by the
judge, and the special certificate follow
ing such purported bill does not have the
seal of the court affixed, the evidence of
the cause is not in the record.
1858. Indiana Railway Company VS. Tel
rick. st. Joseph c. c. Reversed. Hadley,
When a person attempts to travel on
foot upon a railroad right of way. without
invitation. he takes upon himself all the
perils that are incident thereto
1856. l., d: & w. Railway Company VS..
- =.
il. Although a person may not be en-
titled to ride upon a freight train as a pas
senger. yet If he is elected. or forced 10
leave the train while IL is IN motion on ac-
is exposed to unnecessary peril, the COM
pany is liable for the injury. > A party
asserting error in the ruling of the trial
court must refer to the page and line of the
transcript where il may be found.
1858. Stone VS.. Stone Sullivan c. c.
Affirmed. Hadley. il In a decree grant
Of oh in
proceeding the words, until the further
order of the court add no legal support
to the subsequent jurisdiction of the court
to change the custody of such children if
their welfare demands ii. 2 In such pro-
ceeding the court may award the custody
both. according 10 their fitness and ability
at the time Of the decision.
9Soo. indiana etc; Gas company vs..
c. il Where a lease for oil and gas
lands is assigned and an action is brought
against the assignee upon the lease by the
leaser. IL is not necessary 10 set out the
assignment in the complaint or file copy
of il exhibit ?. Ii is only when a
pleading is founded upon a written instru-
ment that copy must be filed. 3. An as
signee is personally liable TO the leaser of
real estate upon oil covenants which run
with the land. 4. Where a lessee agrees
10 drill a gas well within certain time.
and 10 furnish the leaser with gas for
heat and light before a certain date. the
two covenants are independent of each
other, and for breach OF the covenant TO
furnish the gas the lessee or his assignee is
liable
1888. Kenney vs. Bevilheimer. HamiI-
ton G. c. Affirmed Bowling. c. il
Code pleading permits a party 10 show
performance OF conditions precedent by spe-
ctf1c aVermentS, well by a general
allegation. that the party has performed
all the conditions of the contract on his
part ,. seller OF a machine its agent
may authorize the purchaser 10 continue
the use OF a machine after the lapse of a
certain time allowed in their contract. g.
The sale OF an interest in a machine by one
partner 10 another does not relieve the
original seller from mis- warranty.
1870 Whittenberger VS.. Bowers. Hunt
ington c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled
1928 T. H. q l. Railroad Company VS.
State ex rel. ketcham. Marion S g Oral
argument. June II and 90 two hours each