The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-18
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


2oo23. Republic Steel Company VS. OhIer. Mad
ison s. c. Affirmed. Jordan il A person
only re9u Tire to uss Ordinary and
jury. 2. The duty of master to furnish a safe
safe tools and appliances to work with is con-
tinuing one throughout the service. 3. master
must mot expose S an servant
such danger without giving him warning there
as w m to d he u
unless while performing the required service
both the peril and the means of ayodins It are
or inform the jury. in any one instruction upon
all o the principles Of law applicable to the case
firmed. Gillett, J.-whatever may be the mis-
takes of election boards ia counting or rejecting
mistakes IL such ballots are DESTROYED.
9Olss Davis VS.. Affieck. Marion G. c, Attor-
pesrancs. giving notice to his client. N
p a92it , Barr ses VS. Stewart Ohio C. C.
1882. Van Buskirk vs. Slower. Madison c. G.
Tran.ferred to Appellate Court;
ferred to AppeiiaI Court. 1900 0'''''' y y IONS
1888. Albany Land Company VS.. Rickel Del
seiss state e1 re VS. 70 TaRes Amen
Appellants motion for extension Of time and for
iesSs to s Bspy brief Ro granted cd
Blackford c. c. Transferred to Appellate Court.
N1SI Beasey VS.. High. White c. c. Trans
sO1s2: HOOP vs.. Af:ioh; Madison G. C. Attor-
this case on giving notice to his client.
APPELLATE COURT.
1870. Indianapolis St.-ry. Co. Dawson.
Marion s. C. Affirmed. Roby. Ill When a
to a place Of amusement kept and maintained
by IT the company is bound to be reasonably
danger. and to that end must exercise ordinary
care and prrdence to render the place reason
unlawful occurrences at place of amusement
may be given to show notice to :ts managers of
ISIS School Township VS.. Hall Lawrence C.
c., Affirmed p. LIN the absence of fraud
board. upon township trustee proceedings. is
conclusive Of all questions passed upon until
set aside by direct proceedings and the law will
presume that such board performed its duty
Ass Webb vs. Hammond Marion S. c. Re
versed. Wiley. il complaint TO reform a
contract; to be good as against a demurrer. must
and. also. the agreement as reduced 10 writing
apd p s 0S5 vain isf ss WHEREIN the mis-
tual 2. Equity will reform a written contract
whenever , through mutual mistake. or the mis-
of the other. 1t does not as reduced to writing.
correctly express The agreement OF the parties.
recovery by the party upon whom rests the bur-
cut his case. 4. Courts OF appeal can only con-
slider such facts as are properly certified as
1851 b. & o. r. r. Co. VS. Ryan. Porter c.
c. Affirmed Black. il Where IT affrma-
Yey NE an snt hreef OF the that
and the same occurrence the statement being
verffed merely 10 meet the evidence as IL may
appear the trial by alleging some other or
additional negligent conduct Of the defendant
the amount OF the one cause OF action should
be controlling. and IL damages be not claimed in
excess OF s.. 600 in any such paragraph the cause
cause of the amount in controversy. The
mere fact that several paragraphs OF complaint
are fled seeking recovery for the death OF a
person there Is more than one cause OF ac-
iion. For the purpose Of an application for
q removal of cause TO the Federal Court it
must be concluded that more can be recov-
cred in the action than the amount laid and
claimed as damages.
44s2 Michigan City VS.. Phillips. St Joseph
Z. c. Oral argument Dec. 10, 1903
44gS Coppock VS.. Austin. Upton c. C. Oral
argument Dec. 8. 1903
1895 Wire Co. City OF Anderson. Madison
c. q. Oral argument Dec. Is. 1903
si{S Stars vs.. Hammersmith. Clark c. c.
Petition for rehearing overruled
1852 Union Traction Co Sicelof Tfpton
G. C. Appellant granted sixty days additional
1855 Union Traction Co. auckland. Mad
!son s, C. Appellant granted sixty days addi-
tioral time.