The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-01-18
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.

1886. Kent VS.. Sigler. Newton c. C. AZ
frmed. Bowling, il. Where a cause
can be decided without passing upon the
cOnstitutionality of a statute the latter
question will not be considered. 2. The act
of March ?, 1899, does not limit the time
for fling petitions, with the Board of Com
missioners for the relocation of a county
seal, TO one year after the taking effect Of
said act.
1903. b. & o. S. w. Ry. Co. VS.. Reed.
Pike c. c.. Reversed. Jordan, c. il.
Where a person was engaged as a brake
men upon a railroad and runs through this
State and the State of Illinois, but resided
in Indiana, and was injured while at work
in the State OF Illinois, by being run over
by his train. any right of action he may
have against the company for the injury
arose under the avs of Illinois. 2. A mas
ter is not liable in an action by one of his
servants for an injury sustained through
the negligence Of a fellow-servant. 8. This
court is bound to presume that the same
common law rule as recognized in this
is enforced by the highest court thereof
in like manner as enforced here. until the
contrary is shown. I. II the law of the
State where the wrong is committed when
applied to the case does not give a right
of action against the ~wrongdOer then no
action can be sustained. 5. A statute Civ
ing q right of action for a tort committed
can have no eXtraterritorial force or eff
feet so as TO create a right OF action in
another state, g. SO far as Section 4 of
prive a railroad company from availing
itself of a defense, in bar to an action,
existing under the laws of another State
for personal injuries occurring within such
State, said action is invalid.
Minutes
1901. John Reagan, trustee ~(assignee). ct
al. vs.. TIL First National Bank of Chi
cago, Ill. Answer brief of Reagan, trus-
tee, ct al.
APPELLATE COURT.
1907. State ex rel. Reno VS.. Golding ct
81 81 ~ - D-4.I n
Where two persons are granted license to
sell intoxicating liquors at retail, and give
the required statutory bond, the mere fact
that the joint license is invalid does not
make the bond void so as TO avoid liabil-
ity thereon to a third person. 2. A party
TO a bond, except in the clearest case,
should not be allowed to deny the plain
recitals of his solemn obligation. when
to do so he would defeat the rights of a
third person. for whose benefit the obliga-
uOn was made, and who has sustained in
sale of adulterated liquors is unlawful I'M
der Section 2l67, Burns, 1901.
1888. Anthony VS.. Masters. Delaware G.
G. Reversed. Black, il. The filing of an
amended complaint takes the original and
answer thereto out of the record. 2. In
an action upon an assigned judgment it il
not necessary to set out or TO exhibit a
copy of the written assignment. 3. The
mere fnsufficiency Of an answer is no rea-
son for refusing TO permit the filing there
of 4. The trial court should permit parties
- EEO01 0AANA NLC ASSatS oA0 lAaA ~ ~ A3A
ana then the trial shout proceed upon
those issues.
1892; Lingg VS.. State ex rel. weitzel.
Dearborn c. c. Petition for rehearing
overruled.
4i91. ST. Clair VS.. Marquell. Delaware
G.. {. Leave granted to file cross-error.
S9SI. Hart VS.. Miller. Wayne c.. c. Oral
rgumen Feb. %, 1902.
S14. Moon VS.. Plate Glass Company.
Howard S. c. Transfer to Superior Court
denied.
S44. Kinsey VS.. Boyce. Marion c. C.
transfer TO Superior Court denied.
Minutes
4l9l. Anna +. st. Clair ct al. VS.. Henry
M. Marquell ct al. Delaware c. c. Motion
Tor leave TO assign errors. Motion for leave
TO assign errors granted.
4LS. The Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company and Susan Davis VS.. Samuel
Brown, administrator of the estate of
Florence o. McClain, deceased. Appel
lants reply brief.
4l52. State of Indiana Elk rel. John Kiefer
VS.. David Wheatley. Upton C. c.. Appel
lees brief.