The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-01-30
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.


20253. ]. & G.. r. T. Co. VS. Foreman
Henry c. c. Reversed. Monks, il. EN-
plOyes while being transported to and from
their work on cars or trains of their en-
ployers are fellow servants of those en-
gagged in the same general undertaking,
and if injured while being so carried by
the negligence of a fellow servant the en-
ployer is not liable therefor. 2. Conclu-
sions in a pleading are not admitted by a
demurrer thereto, and cannot control
special facts alleged. 8. Where il is
charged in a complaint that plaintiffs in
jury, for which he brings the action, was
caused by the incompetency of u fellow
servant it must be avered that plaintiff had
no knowledge OF such incompetency. A. In
order to make a good complaint under the
second subdivision of Section 1883. Burns,
1901, it is necessary to allege among other
things that the injured employee was con-
forming to the order or direction of some
person in the service of the corporation, to
whose order or direction he was bound TO
conform, and did conform, and that while
conforming to such order direction he
was injured by the negligence of the en-
ploye to whose order he conforming.
5. An employe who knows, or by the exer-
else of ordinary care could know, of any de-
fects or imDerfectiOns in the place. ways
machinery, appliances, tools or other things
about which he is employed the want OF
capacity or the negligent habits of Il fell
low servant. and continues in the service
without objection and without n promise of
change, is presumed to have assumed the
risks resulting from such defects i'm
projections or fellow-servant's want of ca
pacity or negligent habits. and cannot re-
cover for injuries caused thereby. 6. In an
action against an employer for injuries
sustained by reason of defective appliances,
etc, it is error to instruct the jury that the
knowledge thereof by the injured party is
limited to actual knowledge.
2O1O5 Buck VS. Beach. Warren c. c.
Appellant granted additional time until
March 5, 1904.
2O2O5. Chase VS.. Chase Benton C. c. Ap-
pellant granted thirty days additional time
from Feb. b. 1904.
n n u
c. G. Appellant granted thirty days ex-
tension of time.
Minutes
20205 Moses Fowler Chase VS.. Frederick
S. Chase. Appellants application for ex-
tension of time filed and thirty days
2Oio5. James Buck. trustee, etc, vs. VIII
liam L. Black. treasurer. Appellants petit
ton for extension of time granted and case
postponed to March 5, 1904.
20l96. Winfield s. Sewers ct al VS.. c., r.
& NJ. r. r.. ct al Appellants petition for
extension of time and consent of appellee
2OlS6 James p. Glow ct al VS. John s.
Brown ct al Appellants reply and brief
'''0 APPELLATE COURT.
S231 Well vs. Stone Allen c. c. Affirmed.
Henley, c. il Where contract for the
sale of different articles is Invisible. one
part having no necessary relation TO the
other. each resting upon a consideration
peculiar to itself, and independent of the
other, the buyer thereof being injured by
reason of such articles not conforming to
the standard as agreed upon, may retain
the subject of one part and tender the con-
sideration or benefit received. and may
treat another part as rescinded at law 2
In an action TO rescind part of a contract
where part of the goods purchased are re-
turned. the market value OF such articles is
immaterial. s. a jury cannot impeach his
own verdict.
44O6 Chicago. etc. Stone Co VS. Nelson
Owen G.. c. Reversed Wiley, +. il
Where a husband deserts his family Sec
tion 267. Burns, 1901, gives the wife of such
husband the right to prosecute an action for
an injury or death OF their minor child. 3
In an action against an employer for an