The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-02-05
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1901. Reagan. trustee. VS.. First National
Bank. Marion S. c. Petition for rehearing
overruled. Jordan, c. J.-Where a party
attacking a conceded fraud which is i'm
pressed upon an instrument under which
he claims he must accept the consequences
of such fraud.
1868. T. H. g. L. Railway Company VS..
Erdel. Clinton c. G. Dismissed. Hadley,
il. In order to get the benefit of an ap-
peal under Section S Of the acts of 1901, p.
$50, for the construction of a statute the
record must affirmatively show that some
statute or provision thereof Is reasonably
subject to more than one construction or
may be reasonably regarded as ambiguous
or uncertain in meaning, and that the ques-
ton presented invokeS an INTERPRETATION of
the statute and affects the rights of the
party presenting it. 2. The phrase CON
struction of a statute" as used in said sec
ton means TO interpret, to elucidate. to
define and declare the meaning of that
which is obscure and uncertain, and can
have no application TO a statute In which
there is nothing doubtful or ambiguous I'm
its terms.
1921. Brooks VS.. p, c., c. g. st. L. Rail-
way Company. Marion S. c. Affirmed.
Gillett, il. Where a shipper riding on a
railway train as a passenger alights from
the train in the switch yard of the COM
pany and in getting from the yard he at
tempts to pass over the tracks of another
company the latter is not responsible for
an injury caused him by one of its ap-
preaching engines when his position and
peril is not known to the servants in charge
thereof. 2. To constitute a willful injury
the act which produced it must have been
intentional or must have been done un-
der such circumstances as evidenced a
reckless disregard for the safety of others
and a Willingness to infict the injury COM
planned of.
1919. Royse VS.. z. & 7. H. Railroad Com
pany. Knox c. c. Publication ordered and
issued.
Leave granted TO withdraw transcript.
1869. P, c., c.. K st. l.. Railway Com
pany VS.. Fish. Pulaski c. c. Oral argu-
ment Feb. &c, 1902.
Minutes
1920. Cynthia Ann Whittenberger ct al.
G.. Appellants petition for leave to index.
1908. c., /. & l.. Railway Company VS..
Patrick Mcguire ct al. White c. c. APP
pellee's petition for leave to withdraw first
1928. T.. H. & 1. Railroad Company VS..
state of Indiana ex rel. William A. Ketch-
am, attorney general. Marion S. c. Appel
lees petition for extension Of time to file
brief.
1915. The p, c., c. & ST. L. Railway
Company VS.. Ernestina Machlsr ct al. La
porte c. c. Appellants petition for adj
ditional time for argument denied.
New Case
1878. Samuel Jacob ct al. VS.. William
Richard White. Marshall c. c. Trans
ferred under act Of 1901 from A. c., 1874.
APPELLATE COURT.
S416. Pape VS.. Ferguson. Allen s. G. At
frmed. Robinson, 2. il. Only such OBJ
j~ections to the introduction of evidence as
are made TO the trial court will be con-
sidered on appeal. ?. If an answer is re-
sponsive TO a question TO which no objec-
ton is made "A motion TO strike out the
answer is not available. 3. In arriving at
the actual damage for failure 10 furnish an
article the court is not in all cases neces-
sarily limited TO any particular market
value. 4. Where IL is commended that a con-
tract has been abandoned by one of the
parties a letter Offering TO compromise their
differences may be offered in evidence to
show that there had been no intention OF
abandoning the contract. s. Damages for
breach OF contract are such loss as may be
traced as the direct results OF the broken
contract. s. Where timber is purchased for
the purpose Of a special resale and that
fact is known to both parties 10 the con-
tract at the time of its formation the meas
ure OF damages on account of a breach
thereof is the profit which would have ac-
crued had the seller performed his part of
the contract.
1910. Halves VS.. Kepley. FLOYD C. c. Re
versed. Roby, il Executors of wills have
the right to have the will under which
they operate construed only when the pro-
visions thereof are ambiguous or doubt
full. Where a will is plain upon its face
courts will not entertain a suit 10 construe
II. nor unless IL is shown that there is an
immediate necessity for construction. 2 In
an action to construe a will so that the
l executor may make the proper distribution