The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-18
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.

0O1INEAlE NOOINA
2O26O. FmmOns VS.. Harding. KosciuskO
c. @. Reversed. Gillett. c. il. Where an
assignment of errors does not show the
court. by name, to which the appeal is
taken, it Is irregular, but not fatally defect
i've. ,. Where a person executes deeds to
real estate and places them In the hands or
another, TO be delivered after the death of
the grantor, and said grantor after the
execution of such deeds withdraws them
without the consent of the grantees and
conveys the same real estate to another per-
son who has knowledge of the execution of
the first deeds, said latter person stands on
no better footing than that occupied by his
grantor with reference to said latter con-
Veyance, and where the grantee under the
first conveyance accepts the benefit of the
prior delivery said latter grantee takes no
title.
2O17S. Meyer VS.. Town of Bonneville. War
rick c. c.. Reversed. Monks, il. The
granting by the board of trustees of a town
to use the streets, alleys and public places
therein to erect poles and posts and TO sus-
pend wires thereon to furnish electric light
to such town and its inhabitants, or to lay
pipes, mains and conduits TO furnish gas,
water. light or heat to such town and the
inhabitants thereof, is the exercise of a
legislative power: but when the town enters
into a contract will a second party having
such franchise, to light its streets and public
grounds and buildings, or 10 heat its public
buildings and offices by steam, hot water or
otherwise, or to furnish gas for that pur-
pose, it exercises a business and not a legis-
latiVe power. And the exercise of the legiS-
lative power, I'm the granting of a franchise,
since the taking effect of the act of 1899,
being Sections 4443r, A4Sbl, Burns, 1901, can
only be done by an ordinance, and such an
ordinance does not become effective until
after publication thereof as required by the
sixteenth subdivision of Section 1857, Burns,
1901, being Acts 1879, p. 21.
Minutes
2Ol9S. State of Indiana VS.. Clarence Pete
man. Montgomery c. c. Appellee's petit
ton for leave to file brief.
2Ols2. Henrietta Wilkie VS.. Myron G.
Reynolds. Madison c. c. Appellee's brief
APPELLATE COURT.
1926. Pacific Mutual ms. Co. VS.. Branham.
Vanderburg c.. c.. Affirmed. COmstock, j.
A complaint upon an accident policy, which,
after alleging the receipt of the injury, AYERS
that plaintiff was so Immediately and con-
tinuously disabled and crippled and wholly
incapacitated for all business, labor or call
ing and so remained wholly incapacitated,
disabled and prevented from performing any
work or labor or pursuing any calling for
the space of fifteen months" etc. shows
from the injury. 2. Total disability as used
In an accident insurance policy does not
mean absolute physical disability on the
part Of the insured 10 transact any kind
OF business pertaining TO his OCCUPATION.
but inability TO follow his occupation in the
usual way. 3. Immediate notice required TO
be given in case OF an injury under an ac-
cident insurance policy means a notice with
i'm a reasonable time under the circum-
stances. 4. Instructions are TO be taken as
1906. Z. & l. r. r. Co. VS.. Huffman. CLAW
y. c. Reversed. Roby, J.-Where the owner
of land abutting upon a railroad builds a
fence upon the right OF way under authority
of Section 1924, Burns, 1901, and brings an
action To recover therefor, the complaint
should aver that the fence was built upon
the side of the railroad or right of way, and
show the dates upon which the building
took place.
4471. Graham VS.. Pacific Bank. Daviess
c. c. Petition for rehearing Overruled.
H4D- indian RalfG CT pv % - n,--1ll
Morgan G. c.. Same.
1859. c., c.. c.. * st. l.. Ry Co. VS.. Por-
ter. Marion c. G. Where a petition for a
certiorari presents a deficiency of the rec
ord of the lower court which is not durable
in this court. il will be denied.
$3.50. Whitsen VS.. StIickle:. Hancock c..