The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-05-23
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
COURT.

1882. Seller VS.. State ex rel. De Kalb c..
G. Petition for rehearing overruled. Jor-
dan, il. While the grammatical con-
struction of a statute is one of the methods
of Interpretation, it is not always the true
mode, and must yield to the manifest in
tentiOn Of the Legislature. 2. The grammat-
ical sense and structure of sentences and
propriety of language employed in a statute
will not be adhered to if inconsistent with
its declared purpose, or If TO do so will rem
der the law inconsistent or absurd.
1885. Estate of John Stanley VS.. Pence.
Madison c. c. Petition for rehearing over
ruled per curiam.-1. An instruction must
considered along with the other instructions
given and when so considered and the jury
is not misled there is no error.
20Ol1. City of Anderson VS.. Fleming. Mad
ison S. G. Reversed. Monks il. AS be-
tween a municipal corporation and the pub
lie the corporation is bound to maintain it's
streets in a reasonably safe condition for
travel, and this duty cannot be evaded or
suspended by any act of the corporal ton. q
Where a city authorizes contractor to dig
excavations across sidewalk and the same
was done of such a character as TO render
the sidewalk unsafe and dangerous for the
purposes of public travel both the city and
contractor are equally liable for an injury
received on account thereof when the per-
son receiving the injury did not contribute
thereto. 3. When person injured by fall
ing into street excavation sues the con-
tractor doing the work for the city for the
injuries received, and judgment is rendered
in favor of the defendant and against the
plaintiff, such Judgment is a bar to a sub
sequent suit by the injured party against
the city for the same cause.
New Suits
a0l29 State ex rel Board of Commission
ers Dubois county. VS.. Henry Cassidy ct al.
Dubois c. c. Transferred from Appellate
Court. No. $685.
2OlaO State ex rel. Board of Commission
ers. Dearborn county. VS.. Frank B. Shuts.
administrators. Dearborn c. c. Trans
ferred from Appellate Court. No. 40ll.
Minute
19ees. Philande- W. Hancher ct al. VS..
Florence Z. Wright ct al. Howard c. c.
Cause dismissed under Rule IS.
APPELLATE COURT.
$780, Andrews VS.. Andrews. Huntington
c. c. Affirmed. Robinson. il. When a
land owner. by will. devises his land 10 his
wife during her life. with remainder over TO
other persons. and before his death leaves
the real estate, devised 10 an oil company,
taking as a royalty a per cent. of the oil
produced. after his death. his widow holding
the life estate. is entitled 10 the royalties
from the oil wells that were opened and in
operation when the life estate commenced.
and those opened and operated after the
commencement thereof, but done under the
lease executed by the testator. and not from
any authority OF the life tenant
1896. Newman VS.. Gates. Marion s. c.
Reversed. Roby. c. il. After the death
Of member of a partnership the surviving
partner has a right 10 the control and pos
session of the property of the firm, and is
only liable to the personal representative
or heirs OF the deceased partner for his pro-
portion of the surplus remaining after the
settlement of the partnership affairs 2. A
surviving partner has the right to institute
debts or to complete and prosecute proceed
tngs which are pending. g. When q person
sets up q counter claim growing out Of the
same contract be u susd upon e = A easo'