The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-28

tories g A general verdict for plaintiff
determines all material issues in his favor.
Which are returned along with such verdict
are irreconcilable Herewith the court must
render judgment in favor of plaintiff. 3.
All reasonable presumptions are INDUCED in
support of the general verdict and against
answers to interrogatories, and the latter
override the former only when both can
not stand.
1898. Clear Creek Stone Company VS.
Dearman. Monroe c. c. Affirmed. Dow
ling il. The general verdict must stand
unless the facts specially found, or some
of them, are not only irreconcilable with the
general verdict, but are of such vital and
controlling nature to necessarily over
throw the verdict. 2. The party demanding
Judgment upon the special findings must
be able to point out material fact or facts
so found which, Notwithstanding all in
tendment and presumptions in favor of the
general verdict. and unaided by any in
tendment or presumption In its own sup
port, would If considered by the jury and
given its necessary legal effect, have COM
PEELED them to return verdict for the
atories submitted to jury must seek in
formation upon questions of fact as con-
te Iaaal ssb by Section DE- $50 Burns, 1901
Affirmed. Gillett, il The provisions of
Section 359a, Burns, 1901. relieving plaintiff
in personal injury cases from proving his
freedom from contributory negligence APP
plies to an action against a physician and
surgeon for malpractice. 2. Where an APP
pellant in personal injury case COMPLAINS
of the refusal of the trial court to order
appellee Ga woman) to submit to a per-
sonal examination of the injury In the pres
ence of the jury he must be able to present
case where 1t was the duty. of the court
to grant the request. 3. A physicians ex-
animation of a patients injuries are priv
LEGGED communications.
Minutes
2o74. Roger w. Lowe ct al. VS. the Law
renceburg Roller Mills Company ct al.
e. I~f1
2OO65. James whitson VS.. the State of In
diana. Washington c. c. Appellee's
brief (S)
APPELLATE COURT.
1859. Payne VS.. Moore Putnam c. G.
Reversed. Comstock. il. Neither a land
lord nor tenant of a building upon the edge
of an adjoining lot, in the absence of
party wall. have an easement i'm the adj
has stood and had the advantage of the
support for twenty years. g Where a cross
complainant has offered an issue in her
pieaaings ana given evidence In support Of
purchase of a party wall. it is error to
deny defendant to such cross-complaint the
privilege OF testimony showing the purchase
of such wall and the conditions thereof
4275. Haugh VS.. Smelser Rush G q
Petition for rehearing overruled Wiley 7
The act of March 9. 1867 (Acts 1867, Page
20D, repealed all laws not passed in con-
formity with the rule declared in Langdon
VS.; Appiegate : Ind SI7 and such repeal
ing act revived section 70 of the art ~
1852, being 265l, Burns. 1901.
465I smith VS.. Sutton. Randolph c. c.
Dismissed under Rule 81 -
473S. Noah VS.. German. etc.. Association
Grant s. c. Publication ordered and &C.
sued.
Minutes
1872 Charles E. Helvie ct al VS.. Artbur
A. Mckain Delaware C. c. Appellants
1853. Indiana Railway Company VS.. Hen
| ~ c. Morgan St. Joseph c. c. Appellee
brief (S)
4342 American Window Glass Companv
vs.: Aonzo n. Williams. Wells C. G. Al,
pellantss additional authorities 81
| 44Ss Baltes Land. Stone and OH Com
| pany ct al. VS.. James NJ Sutton Biacr-
| ford c. c. Appeliee's brief (s)
| 1885, August Boldt VS.. Hilary Early 81
Joseph c. c. Appellants brief fs.)
| 1850. Riley r. Goldbury ct al. va. Ohio
| and Indiana Consolidated Natural and N.
| Illuminating Oil Company. Blackford q n
| Appellants petition to transfer to Supreros
Court and brief tS) on petition