The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-11-07
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


1896 Smith VS. Smith. Marion C. c. Re-
versed. Gillett, i'll. There must be some
ground of equitable interference aside from
the mere illegality of tax to justify a
court of equity in enjoining the auditor
from entering such tax upon the tax dupli-
cate. 2. A writ of Injunction against illegal
taxes ought not to be issued, in the absence
of some extraordinary necessity, before
the duplicate is in the hands Of the treas
urer, and he is threatening or about to coll
lect the tax.
1879. Standish VS.. Bridgewater. Washing
ton c. c. Dismissed. Bowling c. il
cause within the jurisdiction of a justice of
the peace is not appealable TO this court q
In the introduction of testimony an offer
to prove must be made before the courts
ruling and the exception taken, to present
any question thereon.
1850 Baxter VS.. Lusher. Elkhart c. c.
Affirmed. Hadley, J.-Wherc a man of ma
ture years, weighing 160 pounds, of ex-
tended experience a householder and
with good eyes went upon a building and
without direction or advice of his employer
so to do, and without the exercise of ordi-
nary care for his safety, walked, and
worked upon, by unabridged joists IA feet
long, which he knew were designed only to
ceiling of the chamber below, stepping
from one to the other without using his
eyes to see defect that rendered one of
the joi Is,s, unsafe as a support: and which
ing himself OF the use of boards convenient
ly near. with which he might have made
his working place safe, and thereby avoided
an injury received by reason of the defec-
tive joist breaking. he cannot recover for
the injury.
1875. Republic, etc., Co. VS.. State Della
ware c. c: Extension of sixty days from
Nov. 5, 1902, granted.
APPELLATE COURT.
$685. Seward VS.. Smiley Monroe G. c.
Dismissed. Comstock, 1.-THE question of
Jurisdiction in court of justice of the
peace is determined from the facts pleaded
upon account and the amount specified is
due does not exceed $500 the jurisdiction is
within Justices court.
4l96 Town of Montgomery VS.. B. & o. s.
w. Railway Company Dayiess c. c. At
firmed. Roby, J.-Where a town appoints
commissioners TO assess benefits and dam
ages in the matter of opening a street, and
properly report upon the same, unless the
trustees of the town accept the report with
in twenty days, and Determine to make the
appropriation of property necessary to the
construction of the improvement, the pro-
ceedings become of non effect.
$780, Wabash Railroad Company VS.. De
Hart. Warren C. c. Affirmed. Black. il.
The word sidewalk is taken in it's ordinary
meaning. and considered part of street.
2. When a sidewalk is spoken of as being on
specific side of a designated street 1t Is
to be understood to be a part reserved OF
that street at or along the specific side Of
the roadway. 3. 1t is a legal obligation of
railroad company to maintain a sidewalk
crossing at its railway and street cross
thereof by the public, and in such manner
as to afford security to life and property
thereat, and make the crossing reasonably
safe for persons lawfully and properly US
ing the way. And it is bound to exercise
ordinary care and diligence to discover and
repair any defective portion of such cross
ing.
1885, Friel VS.. Nelson. Koscusko c. c. Re-
versed, Henley, p. 1.-THE qualified voters
of township in which liquor license is
sought have right to appoint an attor-
IN
do any acts in relation thereto which they
may do If personally present:
4osl Manlove VS. c.. c., c. & st. L. Rail-
way Company. Madison c. C. Affirmed.
Robinson, il Where a person Is per-
mitted by railroad company to use its
track as footpath for his own conven-
the fact that he was upon the track with
implied consent of the company. 2. The
mere fact that such company does not at
tempt to prevent travel along Its tracks, it
does not thereby invite the use of its tracks
for the purpose of travel, and persons so
using the tracks for their own convenience
do so at the risk of attending perils. 3.
Where a person is travelling along the
tracks OF railroad the employees in charge
or an engine have right, until the last
moment, to presume that such person will
leave the track in time to avoid danger.
and such person is bound to know that
train Is liable at any time to pass over the
tracks at rate of speed usually run ct
such place, and that a license to go there
upon is subject to the risks incident to the
use of the track by the company as it was
used at the time the license was granted.
AVA Smith VS.. Schmitt. Allen s. c. Mo-
ton to dismiss postponed.
1925 Hesh VS.. Bolin. st. Joseph G. c. Pc
tftion for rehearing overruled.
4421. Burns VS.. Church Trustees. Allen s.
G. Motion to reverse postponed.
442S Stone Company VS.. Steele. Orange G.
c. Motion to dismiss overruled.
451S Reible VS.. Bunting. Knox G.. G. Ger
tiorari granted.
1851 Duzan VS.. Myers Marion c. c. Petit
ton for additional time granted.
1919 Bateman VS.. Bennett. Warrick G. G.
Petition for additional time granted
Minutes
1885, The Union Trust Company of In
dianapolis, receiver. ETC., VS.. Peter F.
Shilling ct al. Clark c. c. Return to
certiorari.
1874 The Blanchard-Hamilton Furniture
Company vs. Stephen Calvin. Shelby c. c.
Appellants brief go
450l John H. Kratz VS.. Samuel z.
Cook administrator etc Illumination @