The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-09
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
COURT.

SUPREME COURT.
1879. Nappanee Co. VS.. Reid Co. Elk
hart c. c.. Reversed. Bowling. G. il. An
embarrassed or insolvent debtor may law
fully prefer one or more Of his creditors
by payment, mortgage, pledge or deed to
the exclusion OF the others. 2. The fact
that the person whose debt is so preferred
Is a wife or other near relative does not
affect the validity of such preference. 3.
In this State manufacturing corporations
are governed by the same rules as individ-
tails, and, although embarrassed or insolv-
ent, may secure one or more creditors
by mortgage or otherwise to the exclu-
sion of all others, though equally meri-
torious.
1886. State VS.. Patton. Sullivan c. C.
Reversed. Hadley, il An Indictment
which charges as follows: "Tha Robert
Patton. late of said county, on the 18th
day of June, 1901, at and in the County of
Sullivan and State of Indiana, by and in
pursuance of a previous arrangement and
| appointment with William Dickerson, so to
do, did then and there unlawfully engage
as a principal with said William Dickerson
I'm a fight between each other with their
fists for and upon a certain wager" which
is alleged to be unknown. charges a crime
under the statute. 2. When a public Of
tense has been declared by statute and
punishment fixed therefor. without defini-
ton, as now well established may be done
IN this state the courts co will resort TO 10 the
language used to determine the sufficiency
of the charge within the general terms
OF the statute,
1899. Joseph Seifert vs.. State of Indiana.
Wayne G. G. Appellants brief 9.) Appel
lant's petition for oral argument.
1880. Wilton L. Hibberd VS.. Irene w.
Trask ct al. Wayne G. c. Appellees petit
tion for oral
1896. The Munc.e Natural Gas Company
VS.. City of Muncie. Randolph c. c. APP
pellant's motion and notice to correct
transcript.
APPELLATE COURT.
1928. Wabash r. r. Co. VS.. c., r. & NJ.
r. r. Miami c. c. Transfer to Superior
Court denied.
1923. g, C.. c. & st. L. R: R: Co; VS..
Il An action under the first clause Of
Section 1888. Burns. 1901 the Employers
quirements concerning contributory negli-
gence and assumption OF risks as is a COM
mon law action. and the second clause OF
such statute takes away from the employer
the defense Of fellow-servant and gives the
right of recovery when an injury results
from the negligence of any person in the
service of the employer (corporation), to
whose order or direction the injured en-
ploye at the time an injury was received
was bound to conform and did conform.
z Where an instruction is given, which
Is not applicable to any issue formed, 1t Is
reversible error. 3. In an action for per-
d der ! s' to- dea ne the nstbba b sis On WHICH Which the
plaintiff may recover should not omit the
essential factor of want Of knowledge of
the danger on the part of the plaintiff.
1888. Earl VS.. Van Malta. Benton c. G..
Reversed. Robinson. Ill. When in con-
veyancing words are used so the land is not
correctly described Ii Is a mistake of fact.
2. The object sought in the reformation of
a deed is not to make a new agreement, but
to establish and p~erpetuate the agreement
of the parties at the time the deed was
written and the mistake made. g. In all
cases Of mistake in written instruments
equity will interfere as between the orig
in privity. 4. In order to defend by means
of the statute of limitation such statute
must be pleaded as a defense. 5. Where
reformation and recovery of possession is
the relief asked a previous demand is not
necessary.
42f7. Howard VS.. indianapolis Street
versed. Roby, i'll. Where there is room
for difference of differences and findings
the issue must be left to the jury, and in
such a case 1t is error to peremptorily
instruct the jury to find for one of the
parties. 2. Where the transcript of evil
dence contains the essentials of a bill Of
is looked to in ermin whether it is
In fact such a bill. 3. Upon a motion for
a peremptory instruction to the jury for a
that the evidence tends to prove in favor
Of the party In whose favor the instruction
is asked and draws against the party max
might draw.
c. C. Dismissed.
37i9. Pulse vs. Osborn. Decatur c. c..
Petition for rebearing overruled.
442S. Norton Co. VS.. Steele. Orange c. c.
Leave granted to complete transcript in
ten days.
1856. B. & o. s. w. R. R. Co. VS.. Hender-
son. Jackson C. c. Leave granted to make
marginal notes
1851. Dugan VS.. Myers. Marion G. G..
Advanced. Appellant ordered to file brief
forthwith and appellee in thirty days.
42sl. Insurance Co.. VS.. Wolff. Laporte
c. c.. Motion to dismiss overruled.
AIS. Fidelity, etc, Association VS.. Driv-
er. Madison S. c. Certiorari granted.
Minutes
A35. Gideon A. Price VS.. J. o. William
Lonn. Laporte c.. c.. Appellee's brief CS)
4470. William G. Lancaster ct al. VS..
Franklin p. Mckinley. Miami c. G.. APP
pellee's brief 49,
1894. Chicago. Indianapolis & Louisville
Railway Company VS.. Mary z. Turner, ad-
ministratrix. Harrison C.. c. -Appellee's
petition for oral argument.
46S. Peter Herbert VS.. Adam Rupertus
ct al. Vanderburg G. G. Brief of appellee
Wheeler, administrator (S.) -