The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-03
SUPREME COURT


1903 Gas, etc. Company VS.. City OF
New Albany. Floyd c. c. Affirmed. Had
ley, il. This court will not decide moot
questions. 2. Where a city constructed a
sewer in accordance with the statute the
court need not decide whether the city had
an easement emitting II 10 enter upon
premise and construct a sewer across
them. 3. Cities have the power TO drain
any lot or parcel OF ground within the city
whenever water has or may become stag
nant, noxious and injurious to health: also
the power 10 regulate ano locate sewers
and TO accomplish drainage. have all the
necessary power 10 go beyond the city I'm
its and TO assess the cost against the prop
erty benefited. T. When a public improve
ment which conveys with il both benefits
and damages is laid upon land under the
right OF eminent domain the compensation
OF the owner for what is taken is deter
mined. in the absense OF a statute forbid
ding II, by taking into account both bene-
fits and damages.
1887. Indianapolis Street-railway Com
pany VS.. Taylor. Shelby g. c. Reversed.
Monks, il. An instruction 10 the jury
should be applicable TO the complaint. 2.
In alleging willful injury the complaint
should allege that the act complained Of
was purposely and Intentionally committed
with the intent willfully and purposely to
lnfiict the injury complained OF. 3. While
the act of 1899 (acts 1899. Z. $50 makes con-
tributory negligence in personal injury
cases a matter of defense. Yet If such negli-
gence is shown by the evidence given on
behalf of plaintiff himself, il is as effective
as il proven by the defendant. and there
can be no recovery.
1898. Scott VS.. Edgar. Rush c. c. Re-
versed. Bowling, il. When A executed
his promissory note TO Il and thereafter b
conveyed land TO c, who was insolvent and
who paid no part of the consideration. and
thereafter A and c proposed TO B that II
the latter would release c from his liability
on account of said purchase c would con-
vey the land to A and that A would assign
20 Il certain sale notes" and would also
cause to be conveyed to b certain land
owned by d, the wife Of A. and afterward
A represented to d that only a part OF the
notes could be turned over to him. but that
he (A) would execute his own note to B for
the deficiency, 1926. and thereafter. at the
request of A and d, c and f, his wife con-
veyed the premises held by G 10 d, and A
and ID thereupon conveyed 10 b the real
estate as they had agreed to do, and A eX-
ecuted to r his note for the 1926. the de-
ferred At the time the note was
made A was and is insolvent and never
owned any property subject to execution.
Held hiatt the transaction was the same as
If B himself had sold and conveyed the c
land 10 ID and had taken the note of A, her
husband, for the unpaid balance OF the
purchase money and that B held a vendors
lien therefor.
1898. George A. Rich. administrator, VS..
TIL Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad
Company. Sullivan c. c. Appellants
1878. Nappanee Canning Company ct al.
VS.. Reid, Murdoch & Co. ct al. Elkhart c.
c. Appellees' points for oral argument 3)
Appellants points.
APPELLATE COURT.
3S72. Wagner VS.. Carskadon. Marion S.
G. Petition to transfer TO Supreme Court
denied.
S6OS. Greenwood. etc. Association VS..
Todd. Johnson c.. c. Reversed. Wiley.
il Where the owner of real estate con-
veys the same to secure a loan of money,
which deed Of conveyance is only a mort
gage. and the holder of the deed thereafter
conveys the land, I'm order for the owner
thereof 70 recover the Va lnp of the roa1 o.
tate. over and above the mortgage. IL must
appear that the deed was a mortgage and
that by reason Of the subsequent convey
ances she has been deprived of her right to
redeem from the purchasers. 2. The right
or is cut off by a conveyance
from such grantee to bona fide purchasers
for value. and without notice, but the right
TO redeem still continues against a pur-
chaser from such grantee with notice.
1887. Heller VS.. Daley. Wells c. c. At
hrmed In part and reversed in part. Black.
il. In cases involving contracts relating
to the finding and taking of oil and gas
from land the court must seek for practical
results not inconsistent with the principles
of law relating to analogous matters, but
maintaining so far as may be the lights of
parties to contract with reference to their
own property. ?. The right to take min
erals from land constitutes an interest in
the land. 3. An interest i'm land lying only
In grant or a term. unless ii be for three
years or less, cannot be surrendered by an
express contract, without a writing suf1-
cient for the conveyance of an interest in
land greater than can be created by parol.
4. Where there is an express covenant I'm a
lease to pay rent for a term of years the
mere acceptance of the rent by the lessor
from the assignee of the lessee does not
discharge the latter. unless the lessor
agrees with the assignee to accept him as
sole tenant.
1905. Shaffer VS.. Stein. Harrison c. C..
Petition 20 advance denied.
3449. Bogue VS.. Murphy. Pulaski c.. C..
Petition for rehearing overruled.
1911. Hit, etc. Company vs.. Zahrt. La
porte c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled.
1900 Kelley VS.. Houts. Allen S. c. Time
granted to file brief.
Minutes
4217. Charles A. Shelton ct al. VS.. John G..
Sharp ct al. Pulaski c. G. Appellees'
brief g. Appellees' Sharp & Sharp brief
on cross errors 81
1892. Peoples State Bank VS.. Frank X.
Ruxer. Spencer c.. c. Appellants brief 0)
4210. Fred Laakmann ct al. VS.. Rebecca
Throckmorton. Johnson c. c. Appellants
reply brief 50
1893. Samuel A.. Hogue ct al. VS.. State ex
rel. Board of School Commissioners of the
City of Indianapolis. Hendricks c. c.. Ad-
ditional brief for Nordyke ct al.
uTnu DID re- E0D CNunnrC