The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-12-13
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT

2O059. Racer ct Tx. VS.. International Build
ing and Loan Association. Jay c. C. Re-
versed. Monks, il. "A building associa-
ton which has exacted a monthly premium
from borrower cannot also insist on pay
ment of gross premium as of the date of
the loan in addition to the sum actually re-
ceived by the borrower There is no author
ity for exacting both kinds of premiums on
the same loan. 2. Where interest and premi-
UNI We're charged on 5000, whereas only $40
was loaned (the rest being retained as gross
premium) the borrower is entitled to have
such excess interest and premiums and
such gross premium credited on his debt
1880 Russell VS.. Bruce ct al. Marion C.
c. Rehearing denied per curiam. BY con-
veying his real estate by mortgage to Sc
cure an Indebtedness the debtor exercises
his right as a resident householder TO an
exemption from execution, by voluntarily
alternating the same, and where such mort
gage is foreclosed and the property sold.
and the proceeds of such sale, together with
the rents during the year of redemption do
not amount 10 any more than the mortgage
debt with costs. sucn rents may be paid
over to the MORTGAGE without infringing
such right OF exemption.
20O5s. Mason ct al VS.. Mason. Allen S.
c. Reversed. Gillett, il Under con-
tract of mutual insurance the insured NAV
change the beneficiary by proper notice 70
and agreement with the insurance company
without consent of the former beneficiary.
where there is nothing In the contract itself
or the charter or bylaws of the insurance
association forbidding it. 2. When the con-
tract points out the means of changing the
i'm that way if he would displace the orig
inal beneficiary. g. The holder of a certif.-
cate in the relief department of the Penn
sylvania Company payable to his mother
could only transfer the same to his wife
by proceeding according to the regulations
OF the company. and merely telling an agent
of the company of his wish at the time he
took a new certificate for insurance of a
different class in which no beneficiary was
named did not have the effect of a trans
fer.
1858 Germania Fire Insurance Company
VS. Pitcher. Vanderburg c. C. Appellants
petition for rehearing.
1871. Oster VS.. Broe. Benton G.. G.. APP
pellant's petition for rehearing.
New Suit
2Ooeo. Harriet westfall VS.: Joseph A.
Wait ct al. Marion c. C. Record. As
signment of errors. In term. Bond.
Minutes
1898. Charles Voss ct al. VS. the Water
loo Water Company. De Kalb c. c. Ap-
1890. Chicago & Southeastern Railway
Company VS.. Jerome B. Wood. Delaware
c,oS G. Appellants reply reply brief g. Cow
pany VS. Caroline c. Pitcher. Vanderburg
c. c. Appellants petition and brief 90
1864. George W. sheaf VS.. Henry c.
Dodge. Elkhart c. c. Appellants brief
()
1891. Antoine oster VS.. George w. Broe.
Benten c. G. Appellants petition and
brief (S) for rehearing.
APPELLATE COURT.
1855 Harlow VS.. First National Bank ct al.
Jackson c. c. Affirmed. Comstock, il
Where a complaint has been held bad on
one appeal TO the Supreme Court IL must be
held bad in all subsequent stages of the
case. unless material amendments are made
in the particulars in which IL was held bad
Amendments by adding immaterial aver
ments can have no effect to make such COM
plant sufficient. 2 A party represented in
court by an attorney is charged with the
knowledge of such attorney that the other
of the privilege TO assert every legal right
afforded them by law. 3. Epithets may
properly be struck out of a pleading as
scandalous. 4. One who files a cross-com-
plant is under no legal duty TO inform the
judge OF its nature and scope. but the court
must take judicial notice of the same.
1929 Mcbride, executor, VS.. Timer. Wells
c. G. Reversed. Black p. il. Proof that
the deceased orally acknowledged himself
indebted to claimant is not competent TO
take claimants debt out of the statute of
limitations a written Acknowledgement
signed by the person 10 be charged is essen
tial TO have that effect. ?. The release of a
smaller debt due from the creditor 10 the
debtor may operate as such part payment
as TO take the larger debt out of the stat
ute 3. Mere proof that her father excused
her husband from debt for rent as a par
tial satisfaction of his own Indebtedness to
claimant, without any proof TO connect
claimant with the transaction was not suf-
ficient proof of part payment 4. The fact
that a part payment did suspend the rum
ming Of the statute of limitations cannot