The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-06-04
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1886. Rinehardt VS. Refers. Tippecanoe
c. c. Affirmed. Hadley, il. An erroneous
description of real estate in a mortgage.
that is full, and consistently complete
within itself, will not be reformed 10 en-
brace an entirely different tract, TO the
prejudice Of q subsequent MORTGAGE, VINO
accepted his mortgage in Ignorance OF the
mistaken description, and In bona hde ren-
ance upon the appearance of the public
record. 2. And the grantee, by a quit-claim
deed, will be protected as an innocent pur-
chaser against such erroneous description.
1880. Malott, Receiver, VS.. State ex rel
Clay c. c. Reversed. Monks, jim an &C
ton against receiver of q railroad, VINO
was appointed by the Federal Court. in the
absence of an allegation showing the de-
PENDANT was appointed receiver, by the
Federal Court it should be alleged that
leave had been obtained from the court
making the appointment to sue the defend
ant receiver.
1886. Mankin VS.. Pennsylvania company
Porter c. c. Oral argument June 25. 1902
Minutes
1905. City Of Terre Haute VS.. William P.
Kersey ct al. City refunding ordinance.
1928. The Terre Haute & Indianapolis
Railroad Company VS.. State of Indiana ex
rel William A Ketcham. attorney general.
Marion S. c. Appellants special points 60
for oral argument.
1860 state ex rel. City of Indianapolis
VS. The Indianapolis Gas Company. Marion
s. c. Appellants additional authorities.
1892 Indiana Power Company st.
Joseph & Elkhart Power Company. St.
Joseph Z. I. appellant auultlondl pIleI
on petition 81
APPELLATE COURT.
1922 Dorsey VS.. Dorsey. Floyd c. c. At
firmed Roby, il A motion to modify
judgment on the ground that the evidence
did not authorize 1t to be rendered cannot
be sustained 2 This court cannot weigh
the evidence when 1t is conflicting. B. Fail
ure to discuss assigned error constitutes
a waiver of 1t.
S5H. Corning Steel Company VS.. Pohl-
platz Lake S. c. Reversed Robinson, j.
/. Minors are held to the same risks of
employment in which they are engaged and
which are open and obvious TO them as
adults. 2. When an employe assumes haz-
ardous position In the course of his en-
ployment, and is injured on account there
of, in an action TO recover for the injury
received it will be presumed in the absence
of an averment and proof to the contrary,
that the danger was as well known TO the
injured person as to any one else B. An
employer is not required TO tell an employe
what under the same circumstances, must
necessarily be known to everybody. 4.
When a person assumes a position over a
large vat of melted metal he will be
charged with notice of its intense heat.
1898. Levick & Co. VS.. Sager. Porter c. G.
Publication ordered and issued.
4G24 Michigan Lumber Company VS.. Pro-
basco Whitley c. c. Appellee given per-
mission to take record from files.
Minutes
1875 Sovereign Camp Woodmen VS.. Rosa
Halter. Vanderburg G. c. Appellants petit
ZION IOr dCulIlOndl time ten udNS.
1882 John A Sullivan VS.. Christian Koh-
lenburg. Wabash c. c. Appellants brief 80
1876. John S. Crump VS.. Harriet Davis.
Johnson c. c. Appellants brief 49,
4341 Mary P. Gelihart ct al. VS.. Herbert
c. Sullivan. by his next friend, etc. Marion
S. c. Appellees brief (SD
New Cases.
1859. Volney T. Malott, receiver T. II. &
l. r. r. Co. VS.. John NJ. Sullivan. Marion
s. c. Record. Assignment of errors No
tice.
4460 Everett Halstead VS.. Clara Coen. adj
ministratrix, ct al. Jasper c. G. Record.
Assignment of errors. Notices (2) below.
446l. Erastus Fritzinger VS. State OF In
diana ex rel. Evalyn Eckert. Adams c. c.
Record. Assignment of errors. In term.
Bond.
1852. The Indiana Manufacturing Com
pany VS.. Carl H. Wells, minor. Miami c. G.
Record Assignment of errors. In term.
Bond.
1853 The Indiana Manufacturing Com
pany VS.. William Buskirk. Miami G. &.
Record Assignment of errors. In term
Bond.
1864 American Rolling Mill Company VS..
James H. Hollinger. Delaware G. c. Rec
ord. Assignment of errors. In term. Bond