The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-16
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


20246. Consumers Gas TT Co. VS. Littler.
Grant G. G. Reversed. Hadley, j.
l. Where no time is specified for the
drilling Of wells in gas or oil lease. such
work must be done within a reasona BILE
time under the circumstances. 2. Equity
looks with disfavor upon forfeiture and
when such is claimed it will closely scru-
tinize the demand, and will interpose to
prevent ii, when its enforcement will OPP
crate inequitably or unconscionably. 8. If
there has been a breach of an agreement
party entitled thereto. either expressly or
by his conduct, valves it, or acquiesces in
It, he will be precluded from enforcing
the forfeiture. t. Where no time for
performance is specified in a contract. and
one party thereto has acquiesced in the
nonperformance OF the other, a demand
for performance WITHIN a reasonable time
must be made to work a forfeiture
1897. State, ex rel. Moore, VS.. Board of
Comrs. Montgomery c. c. Mandate modi-
fed, and petition for rehearing overruled.
Glllett, c. il. An injunction is a pre-
ventive remedy, and mandamus a COM
manding one. 2. A rehearing will be denied
where there is no reason for one being
given.
2O2l6 Strebin VS.. Lavengood. Miami C. G.
Certiorari granted and issued.
1850 Lane VS.. Bower Elkhart c. C. Pc
ution for leave to file petition to transfer
9O267. ]. H. Clay ct al. vs. p. c.. C. & ST
lantS brief (S)
APPELLATE COURT.
400. Weaver VS.. Meyer. Clay c. c. At
firmed. Roby, J.-Where from all the facts
In the controversy proper result was
ached by the trial court the cause will be
affirmed on appeal
AL Bass VS.. Citizens, TT. Co. Lawrence
c. c. Affirmed. Wiley, P. il. In
the absence of request for a spe-
cial finding, and where it does not af-
firmatively appear from the record that
il was made, and the court makes a spe-
cial finding, it will be treated as a general
finding. ?. A request for special finding
will not be implied. g. In an action TO set
aside a conveyance as fraudulent in order
statutory rights under the exemption law
he must tender issue thereon by an
answer TO the complaint
1890 Rariden VS. Rariden. Newton c. G..
Dismissed Robinson, il. Alimony is
purely incidental to a divorce proceeding,
and has no existence as a separate and in
dependent right. 2. Judgment for almony
may be modified or disallowed by an APP
pellate court without affecting the decree
of divorce. 3. Where, after the determine
ton of a divorce proceeding. the husband
appeals from the judgment for attorneys
fees and alimony rendered against him. and
pending such appeal he remarries he there
by valves his right TO prosecute the appeal.
son Blackford c. c. Appellee granted ed
1865. f. & T. H. r. r. Co. VS.. Mckinney.
fosey =. =. Oral argument postponed to
April 90 1904
4740 Consumers Gas TT. Co. VS. Couch.
Delaware c. c. Oral argument April 26.
1904.
47A. Crown Oil Co. VS. Ward. Grant S. c.
Oral argument April 2S, 1904
4I47. Standard Oil Co. VS.. Fordick. Porter
5. c. Oral argument May 10, 1904.
Minutes
SOL. c., 1. & l.. Railway Company vs..
w. X. Pritchard. administrator Clay c.
c. Appellees petition for additional time
granted. Sixty days.
500. p, c., c. & st. l. Railway Com
pany VS.. Howard Z. Nicholas. Henry c.
c. Appellee's brief 90 and petition for oral
argument.
502l. The city OF Frankfort VS.. jefferson
Irwin. Hamilton c. c. Appellants brief (s }
i646. Union Traction Company OF Indiana
VS.. Michael Z. Vandercook Delaware q
c. Appellants petition and brief (s) for
oral argument.
STAG. ]. j. Fry VS.. w. NJ. Shafer ct al Jas
per G. G. Appellants brief (S)
5o7S. Bedford Quarries Company VS.. Jones