The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-10
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.


1888 State Of Indiana VS.. c.. c., c. & ST.
L. Railway Company. Fountain c. c. At
firmed Gillett, J.-Affirmed upon the au-
thority Of State VS.. Appellee, 81 n. L.
Rep. 669.
1888 osborne vs. Hanlin. Jay c. c. Re-
versed. Jordan, c. il An answer to a
suit upon note which, in general terms.
alleges no consideration, Is sufficient, but
one which attempts to set up a whole or
partial failure of consideration must state
facts sufficient to establish such failure. 2.
An answer in bar, to be good on demurrer,
must answer all that it assumes to in the
Introductory part thereof 3. When a per-
son relies upon warranty made by the
opposite party in the sale OF machine, ii
is essential that he show clearly any i'm
perfect work done by the machine is due
TO its own defects, and not to the manner
in which it is operated.
1882 Smyth VS.. State ex rel Braun. Ben
ton c. c. Petition for rehearing overruled.
1886. Clifford VS.. Baker. Jasper G. G. Pc
tition for rehearing overruled.
1888. 7. H. l.. Railway Company VS..
ErdeI. Clinton c. c. Petition for rehearing
overruled.
1977l c. & S. E. Railway Company VS..
Kinney. Putnam c. C. Certiorari granted.
1928. Freese VS.. State. Shelby c. Z. Ger
tiorar granted.
Minutes
1898. Myra Freese VS.. State of Indiana.
Shelby c. c.. Appellants petition for GER
tiorari.
1885. William H. Hart. Auditor. ct al.
pellants' brief 49,
1926. Harry B. Smith. Auditor ct al. VS..
Delavan Smith ct al. Marion s. G. APP
1873. p. Fl. " ". C. Ry. Co. VS.. Morton
Gillespie, Surveyor. etc. Kosciusko C.. G.
Appellants additional authorities 50
neva. Jay c. c. Appellees brief CS) on mo-
ton TO dismiss.
1884. Robert F, caterson ct al, Execu-
tors, VS., Harry Bradley ct al. Barthoio-
1890. The p. & o. S. w. r. r. Co. VS..
State of Indiana ex rel. John w. Green
wood, Trustee. etc. Daviess c. c. Appel
1925. The T. H & I. r. r. Co. VS.. the
State of Indiana eX rel. William A. Ketch-
am, Attorney General. Marion S. c. APP
pellees petition for time TO file brief, etc.
APPELLATE COURT.
35O3 Little VS.. Koerner. Vanderburg S.
c. Affirmed. Comstock, c. J.-While pay
ment Of part of a debt is not a satisfac-
ton of the whole, though the creditor
agrees to receive part in satisfaction Of
the whole, the exceptions to this rule are,
viz: Where the claim is unliquidated, or
where payment is made before 1T is due,
or where new security is given, or where
there is composition or creditors, or
negotiable security for a smaller amount
given and accepted in satisfaction OF
larger debt
Reed. Marion S. c. Affirmed. Roby, III. A
motion that the court render judgment
when Judgment has already been rendered
is bad upon it's face, and a ruling upon a
motion thus made is not reversible error. 2
Where IL is the duty of a street-car COM
pany to furnish all cars with safety gates,
where emitting TO furnish such gates,
along with other conditions, causes a per-
son to fall off the car and receive an in
jury, such negligent omission may be the
proximate cause Of the injury.
1861. Racer VS.. international, etc, As
ISOLATION Jay c.. c. Affirmed. Black, il.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Sc
curing a bond for the payment of interest
and premium 10 a building association the
to the date of the judgment rendered. 2.
The provisions of a certificate of building
and loan stock, whether In the body OF the
certificate or in attached terms. conditions
and bylaws referred TO in the body, are
to be read together 3. The act Of 1897, le-
CALLING all contracts for the payment of
building and loan premiums, is sufficient
to cover a transaction where the premium
TO be paid was in gross and also payable in
installments
3479. Robinson VS. Etter. Wayne c. c.
Affirmed. Henley, 1.-THE mere fact that
a servant may know, or could have known,
of a defect in certain machinery, by the
exercise Of due care, does not necessarily
charge him with an assumption Of the
risks growing out of such defect. by the
use thereof, because the risk and hazard
may not be so open and apparent as TO be
appreciated by him on account of his ig
norance or want of experience.
1857 T. H. & /. r. r. Company VS.. Rit-
tenhOuse Marion S. c. Petition for re-
hearing overruled.
1879. London etc, Co. VS.. Siwy. Lake c. c.
Applica ton of appellee for extension of
time to file brief granted.
Minute
4O9S. The Clear Creek Stone Co. VS.. Law
son f Deamer by his next friend, Mon
roe Deamier Monroe c. c. Petition for
leave TO withdraw record.
New Case.
4407 Mary A. Lusch VS.. James Pool ct al.
Huntington c. c Record. Assignment of
errors Notice to Allen county. Notice 10
Delaware county.