The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-12-19
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1888 The Greenfield Lumber and Ice Com
pany VS.. Parker ct at Hancock c. G. At
firmed. Monks, il. In an action for ma
terial furnished, which action was brought
by against A and others and founded
upon bond executed by as principal
and the others as sureties to secure the
performance of a written contract of A
with B, a complaint is defective as to the
sureties which sets up said contract and
there is no obligation to pay for material,
and a demurrer to such complaint by the
sureties Is properly sustained. 2. Sureties
are favorites of the law and are not bound
beyond the strict terms of the engage
ment; their liability is not to be extended
by implication beyond the terms of their
contract.
1903. The Board of Commissioners of the
County of Owen ct al. VS.. Spangler ct al.
Owen G.. c: Affirmed. Gillett. il. The
act of Feb. z, 1899 CActs 1899, Page 26), makes
it unlawful for boards of commissioners
to issue bonds for the construction of high
ways when the total issue of such bonds
including bonds already issued. exceeds
per centum of the assessed taxable valua-
ton of the property of the township, and
all bonds issued in violation are void; and
the issuing OF such bonds may be enjoined
and also the levying and collection of a
tax for the payment of such bonds may be
enjoned 2. The act of March 4, 1899 Is
of 1901 (Acts 1901 Page 1881 is also local and
Is invalid.
Minutes
1894. John Dean ct al. VS.. the Indiana
MdcdQdm ana CONSTRUCTION Company. Tlp-
pecanoe c. c. Appellees brief.
1887 William E. Ewing VS.. James
Ewing ct al. Huntington G. G. Appellants
brief Q0 on motion to dismiss.
New Case
2oO63 Frank NJ. Tomlnson VS.. George W.
Bainake ct al. Marion S. c. Record. AS
signment of errors. In term Bond
Praecipe notice for appellee Makepeace.
APPELLATE COURT.
4216. Evans ct al. VS.. Odern ct al. Allen
G. c.. Affirmed. Robinson. il. An action
will lie to cancel a mortgage and notes
when the sole consideration for the making
of said mortgage and notes is the taking
up and surrendering of an old mortgage
and notes, and when the consideration has
| totally failed by reason of the old mort
| gage not being taken up and surrendered.
2. An affidavit. made at the time of the
| execution of the new notes and mortgage
| and as a part of that transaction, to the
| effect that the new notes and mortgage
are the only ones in existence. will not con-
| stitute an estoppel unless il is shown that
one was induced TO act and did so act in
| reliance upon such affidavit g. A note
containing clause waving all defenses
| on the ground of any extension of the time
| of payment that might be given by the
holder is not negotiable as an inland bill
| of exchange and is subject to defenses in
1 the hands of an assignee 4. In a term
time appeal, when part of any number of
| coparties against whom a judgment has
been taken shall appeal it is not necessary
| TO make such coparties, not appealing
| parties to the appeal nor to name them as
appellants or appellees I'm the assignment
| of errors.
1853. The Citizens Street-railroad Conn
| any VS.. Shepherd. Johnson c. c. AZ
| firmed. Comstock, J.-Dissenting opinion
| Roby. c. j. Henley, j., dissents / A
| complaint which fails to specify the name
| of the court in which the action is brought
| does not strictly fill the requirements of
| the statute (Sec. 34l. Burns r. 81 (Sec. 33S
| Horner). but the objection is 10 form
| rather than substance, and since the de-
| feet cannot have affected the substantial
| rights of the defendants II ought not to
| avail upon appeal by them. g Communica-
| tons as between a physician and his pa
| tient are privileged and confidential. and
the patient does not waive the privilege
| even though she fully discloses facts con-
| corning herself in open court, and per
mits other witnesses TO testify 10 such facts.
including two other physicians who at
| tended her.
Ruling
4547. Mitchell VS.. Miller. Miami c. C. An
peal dismissed, on motion of appellee
Minutes
1880. Anna f. Hancock ct al VS. the Dia-
| mond Plate Glass Company ct al Howard
| S. G.. Appellants brief tS)
1891. Sarah j. Carr ct al VS.. the Dia-
| mond Plate Glass Company ct al Howard
s. c. Appellants brief Isl
New Case
1852 William Hancock VS.. the Diamond
Plate Glass Company ct al. Howard 8. c.