The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-02-07
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


1925. Eissler VS.. Happel. Vanderburg
S. C. Affirmed. Hadley. J.-Where an heir
expectant In consideration Of a certain sum
from other heirs releases all right to her
share of the future estate, and actually re-
ceives the sum agreed upon at the time the
contract is made. she will be bound
thereby.
1899. Carver VS.. Forty. Madison c. c..
Affirmed. Jordan, G. il. This court can
not weigh the evidence so as to determine
on which side the preponderance lies. 2.
In order to justify this court in disturbing
a judgment of a trial court on the evidence
above 1t must appear that the evidence Is
such as to raise or present for decision a
question of law on some material issue, and
that such question was decided enormously
by the trial court.
1895. Gas Company VS.. State ex rel. Ball.
Boone c. c. Oral argument Feb. Is. 1902.
Fountain G. C.. Oral argument Feb. q, 1907.
1905. City of Terrue Haute VS.. Kersey.
Vigo S. c. Oral argument March y, 1902.
1857. indianapolis Street-railway Com
pany VS.. Taylor. Shelby c. c. Oral argu-
1857. Terre Haute & Logansport Railway
Company VS.. Thomas. Clinton G. C. Petit
ton for rehearing overruled.
Minutes
vs. the Citizens Street-railroad Company.
Marion S. c. Appellants additional au-
'H 1918. Willis b. Wheeler VS.. State of In
diana. Warrick c. G. Appellants petition
for additional time.
1869. The b. & o. S. w. Railway Com
Appellants reply C9 to supplemental brief
of appellee.
New Case
1880; william ]. Allen VS.. Norman Nc
der act Of 1901 from Appellate Court C3SOe.)
APPELLATE COURT.
1915. Irwin VS.. Guthrie. Martin c. c.. At
irmed. ROby, J.-No Change in form or
confusion Of details can give consideration
or validity to d transaction which origi-
nally had none and was founded on fraud.
3523. Cullen VS.. State ex rel. Brown, ad-
ministrator. Rush c. c. Reversed. Wiley.
w real estate of a decedent is sold
10 pay debts the statute fixes the right Of
the widow in such real estate, or in the
funds realized from its sale. She is entitled
to one-third interest in value, and the
court. under certain conditions, may order
the sale of the entire estate and require
thai One-third of the proceeds be paid L
the widow. And when the administrator
accounts to the estate for all moneys due
it, but fails 10 pay the widow her share,
the estate cannot maintain an action
against the administrator upon his bond for
the amount due the widow.
1864. PelVersOn VS.. Smith. Adams C.. c..
Affirmed. Robinson. p. il. The provision
of the statute relating TO the guardianship
OF minors which requires the guardian to
his receipts and expenditures at least once
in every two years. and In failing TO do so
shall receive no allowance for services. is
applicable to guardians of persons OF un-
sound mind. 2. A guardianship is one Of
continuous matter, and when the court is
asked TO terminate the trust by approving
a final report the whole guardianship may
be reviewed.
1922. Consumers Gas Trust Company vs..
American, etc, Company. Madison s. c..
Advancement denied.
1906. Allen VS.. MCGEE. Monroe G. g. Pc
tition to transfer to Supreme Court granted.
1896. Woods VS.. Indiana. etc, Associa-
ton. Knox &. &. Appellant petitions to
transfer TO Supreme Court.
Minutes
1916. Jesse Mankin VS.. Pennsylvania Com
pany. Porter c. c.. Appellants petition for
additional time.
4242. Margaret A. Conner VS.. John r.
Hayworth. Pulaski c. c. Appellants petit
ton TO amend brief.
1893. The Wabash Railroad Company VS..
c., r. * NJ. Railroad. Miami G.. e. Re
newal OF appellee's petition for oral argu-
ment-
1896. Woodford E.. Woods vs.. Indiana
Mutual Building and Loan Association No.
3. Knox c. G. Appellants petition TO trans
fer TO Supreme Court CD
3737. Henry =. Davis VS.. Jefferson Davis.
administrators Madison G. G. Appellants
petition TO transfer TO Supreme Court.
401l. Salem-BedfOrd Stone Company et
al. VS.. Joel L. Hobbs. administrator. Law