The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-06-07

hearing overruled. per curiann.-1. Under
the statute authorizing the organization of
companies for hydraulic purposes, the only
pubic and unequvocal act by which sucn
companies are empowered 10 indicate their
intention TO devote lands 10 a corporate
and public use Is by fling their instrument
OF appropriation in the office Of the clerk
OF the county wherein the lands are stu
ated. 2. Points not included in the original
statement OF points" nor referred to in
the briefs on the hearing cannot be con-
sidered on petition for rehearing-
1891 Wilson VS.. Ward. Howard S. G.
Affirmed. Gillett. J.--Where a warranty
upon horse provides that this contract
or guarantee 20 be null and void May !,
1900, the contract having been executed
IN February. 1889. and the action thereon
commenced in June, 1900 the complaint
should show that complaint was made be-
tract and the date Of its termination that
the horse did not fulfill the provisions of
the warranty.
We. Stockdell. Hancock c. c. Petition for
rehearing overruled.
1923 Scott VS.. Edgar Rush c. c. Petition
for rehearing overruled.
1887. Brown VS.. Glow. Clinton G. G. MO-
ton 20 relax costs overruled.
Minute
1878. John 9. Helm VS. City of Terre
Haute ct al. Vigo c. c. Appellees' brief g.
APPELLATE COURT.
1898. Lucas VS.. RAIDER. Marion S. c. Re
versed. Comstock, Ill. The appointment
Of subagent is not binding upon the prin-
cipal unless authorized expressly or by
implication or afterwards ratified 2. Per-
sons dealing with an agent must ascertain
the extent of his authority. They are put
upon their guard TO ascertain the fact of
his agency and the extent of his authority.
;: An agency must be established before
the declaration OF an agent is admissible
against the alleged principal.
36l3 Penn Co. VS.. Walker. Greene G. c.
Reversed. Wiley. c. Ill. Where the facts
disclosed by the special findings are insult
hcient TO uphold the judgment upon the
theory of the complaint the judgment will
be reversed. 2. A party cannot sue upon a
parol contract and recover upon a written
one 3. A party must recover upon the the
DRY Of his complaint or not at all.
1895. Guy VS.. Liberenz. De kalb c. G..
Affirmed. Henley p. il Where a mar
ried woman executes note along with her
husband, the presumption of suretyship
arises when there is something about the
transaction TO indicate that the debt might
be that of another 2 And in special ind
Ing In an action upon such note in order to
defeat defense of suretyship it must be
found that such married woman did not
execute the note as surety.
1854 Home, etc, Assn. VS.. Friends
Church. Hamilton c. c. Affirmed Black
il Where the contract between a Dor
rover and a building association is wrong
by mutual mistake the bond and mort
gage. as executed providing for the pay
ment OF certain dues. etc, not agreed to-
and the association refuses TO accept pay
ments after certain time and notifies such
borrower that ii intends to wind up its
business, the borrower is liable TO the as
ISOLATION for the amount OF the principal
and per cent. interest up until such notice
IS given, against which should be placed
the payments made, for credits; and such
borrower may recover from such associa-
ton damages for violation of its contract
which may be set off against the amount
found due the association. 2. A borrower
from building association is not in de-
fault when IL seeks TO make payments &C
cording TO the terms of the contract.
Minutes
1887. Martin Fleener ct al. VS.. Edward D.
Litsey ct al. Parke G. c. Appellants reply
brief (S)
4467. Isabelle Williams VS.. Peter B. Man.
ley ct al. Jay c. c. Supersedeas granted
and issued.
New Suits
1853. Peter Herbert VS.. Adam Rupertus ct
al. Vanderburg c. c. Record. Assignment
of errors.
1869 c., I. & L. Railroad Company VS.
George B. Cunningham, administrator
Washington G. G. Record. Assignment Of
errors. In term. Bond. Appellants brief (S)