The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-03-13

Burns. 1901 for the construction of a ditch,
where land owner is personally served
with the proper notice twenty days before
the petition is dOcketed, and within the
time prescribed by law appears and files
his remonstrance challenging the assess
ment upon all permissible grounds, with
out making any objection TO the Sufficiency
of the notice, or the regularity in filing the
petition, all questions pertaining TO the
ter is waived. ?. Invoking questions in the
right Of others against the validity of
judgment for want of notice or other jul
risdictional fact, is a collateral attack by
the party doing so, and as against a col
lateral attack finding of the court that
notice has been given, or other fact nee
essary to jurisdiction has been established.
is conclusive, unless the record affirma-
lively discloses that the contrary is true
g. The State may authorize the improve
ment of drain across the right of way of
a railroad company, by deeping and widen
ing natural channel.
1855 Kent VS.. Sigler. Newton c. c.
Appellants petition for rehearing.
Hearing of appellants application set for
March 20, 10 a. m.
Minute
1878 Emma Woolfington, administvatix,
VS. John X Ritter. etc Delaware c. G.
Appellee'S motion and notice TO dismiss.
APPELLATE COURT.
1851 Buehner Chair Co. VS. Teulner.
Warrick c. c. Reversed. Comstock j.
A complaint for damages on account of
reason
defective boring machine is sufficiently spe-
| cific when it gives a complete description
of the machine and the manner of oper-
ating 1t and AYERS that 1t was unsafe and
statutes ?. \ complaint charging the omis-
| sion of a statutory duty without refer
| ence to any other averment is a sufficient
| charge of negligence in permitting a de-
| fective machine to be operated in a fac
| tory. 8. An allegation that the unsafe
condition of a machine was known to the
1 .lr.r-n fhn
| sufficient to rebut actual knowledge and to
repel imputed knowledge on the part of
| the employe. 4. An emDloye does not as
sumo the risk arising from a disregard
! of statutory duties the part of the en-
ployer ). 1t is the duty of an employer to
properly guard all dangerous machines
| factory inspector. g. When a verdict is not
| sustained by sufficient evidence the judg-
ment will be reversed.
1888 Dwight VS.. Andrews. Elkhart c.
1863 Annis VS.. thinner ST. Joseph c. c.
| Dismissed
Upton c. c. Motion to dismiss denied
4l73 Goode VS.. Elwood Lodge. Madison
| S. g. Application for certiorari overruled
$3.50. O'Brien VS.. Bradley. Madison s.
$3.50. O'Brien VS. Busch. Madison S. c.
Application to transfer to Supreme Court
denied.
4
| w. Madden. administrator De Kalb c. c.
] Appellants brief (S)
! 1925 William A. White VS.. Charles w
| Mitchell ct al. Vigo c. c. Appellee
1923. William NJ. Mcbride, executor. VS.
| Sarah NJ. Timer. Wells c. c. Appellee
| brief (S.)
ops George w. Black ct al. VS. Frank
| Nelson Marsh. Putnam c. c. Appellee
| Marshs brief 80
1905. The Geiser Manufa curing Com
| pany VS.. Fred Lee ct al. Clay G. c. Appel
lants brief 8)
4S74 Floram r. Statesman VS. Frieda
| Statesman. Elkhart c. .. Appellant
| brief 81
4021 Elise W. Fromm ct al. VS.. John r
| Lawrence ct al. Marshall G c. Appellees
| waiver.
New Cases.
4s77. William II. Collins VS.. Joseph G.
Amiss, trustee. Huntington c. G. Trans
ferred from Supreme Court 1901.
4S7S. Marcellus Alexander vs.. Dustan NJ
Spauldiug ct al Wells c. g. Transferred
from Supreme Court, 1904.
1873 Knickerbocker Ice Company VS.
| William II. Lewis. LapoTte G. g. Trans
ferred from Supreme Court, 1924.