The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-05
NEW SUITS FILED
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.


1851. Hanna VS.. Mclaughlin Jay G. C..
Reversed. Bowling, il. A demand Is not
necessary before a suit can be brought by
one partner against another for an ac-
counting and settlement. 2. a cOpartner-
ship formed for a single transaction dis
solves when the transaction Is closed, and
after dissolution one partner may maintain
an action against the other for an ac-
counting and final settlement. 3. Where
one partner receives partnership funds he
is a trustee for the firm. and when he has
converted such funds to his own use, or
has without authority invested them in
property into which they can be distinctly
traced, the cestui que trust has the right to
follow the same into the new investment;
and where trust funds are invested In the
hands OF third persons, having knowledge
of their character, they still remain i'm
pressed with the obligation of the trust and
are subject to be reclaimed and restored to
the trust fund.
1856. Mellott VS.. Messmore. Clinton c..
c.. Dismissed. Gillett. jim vacation of
appeals all parties against whom Judg-
ments are rendered must be made appel
lants, and proper steps must be taken to
bring them into this court in order 10 give
it jurisdiction.
1896. Heberg VS.. Hammond. etc. Asso-
citation. Lake S. c. Transferred To Appel
late Court.
Minutes
1866. George H. Helbeig VS.. The Ham
mond Building. Loan and Savings Asso-
citation. Lake S. c. Appellants applica-
ton for additional time TO file brief. APP
p~ellant's application for writ of certiorari
and proof of notice for April Is. 1902.
1917. Henry J.. Thistlewaite VS.. William
g. Pierce. Hamilton c. G. Appellants
brief.
1881. William Drew VS.. The Town of Ge-
neva. Jay c. c. Appellants motion to dis
miss and notice for April IA.
New Case
1887. John p. Haughn ct al. vs.. The State
OF Indiana. Record. Assignment of errors.
Separate errors. Joinder. Notice served.
APPELLATE COURT.
1872. Robinson VS.. .Pease. Monroe G. G.
Affirmed. ROby il. Under the laws of
Ohio a married woman may enter into con-
tracts of suretyship. Z. \ contract S gov
erned by the laws OF the State IL which il
is to be performed.
$3.50. Chamberlain VS.. Rurkie. Hunting
ton G. G.. Reversed. Blaze. il. Tac
forms and sOlemnitiCs requisite 20 the pass
ing of title to real estate must be in con
formi;y To the local law OF the county in
which the land is situated. =. The prem
iscs AND tie habendum of a deed should be
construed together, and If they CanrOt he
iia' no, lied the premises shall prevail.
- re ZEE granted in the premises of a deed
carrot ~ cut down 10 a life estate by the
h 5.n M. :. BY The act of 1859 It was
Unnecessary 20 use the words heirs
g+ 90! cne $ 90 the rantec' in a deed to
or T. IN the latter an estate of Inherit
So. ,. e.. &. 6 st. l.. Railway Com
paNy rs. GRAY. Cass G. c.. Reversed.
81 ley. il. When a person becomes a
pssStngc- ON a train. pays his fare and
conducts himself in an orderly and proper
manner he remains a passenger until he
safely debarks thcrefTora. >. 1t is not neg
ligence per Sc for a passenger to attempt
to aliEht from a slowly E9Ting train. 3
from a moving train the company is not
liable for the injury sustained when a
brakeman simply directed such person how
TO alight.
426l. Insurance Company VS.. Wolff. La
porte S. c. Petition TO dismiss cross-errors
granted.
Minutes
4374. Floran r. Stutsman VS.. Frieda
Stutsman. Elkhart G. G.. Appellee's brief
1855. Jemima Stutsman VS.. Frieda Stuts.
man. Elkhart G. G. Appellee's brief.
New Case
4403. James Il. Mulky VS.. James Kaisel
ct al. Monroe. Record. Assignment of err
! OTS.