The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-01-09
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.

20261. Edmunds, etc, Company VS.. Mar
rotte. Allen S. c. Affirmed. Gillett, c. j.
i. Where tender is made and there is no
objection to the kind of money offered,
which is money Of the United States the
tender is sufficient. 2 "A mere recital in the
original bill of exceptions containing the
evidence that plaintiff excepted TO the filing
of an additional paragraph of answer Is in
sufficient to question the action of the court
in permitting such paragraph to be filed;
the record must show an exception to the
ruling of the court in permitting such an
swer to be filed.
2OlSO. Goodman VS.. The State. Spencer C.
c. Affirmed. Bowling, J-Section 1746 Burns
1901, permits the prosecuting attorney to file
a substituted affidavit and information when
the original are lost. and no second arraign-
mentor plea is necessary
20l57. Board Of Commissioners VS.. State
ex rel. White G. G. Reversed. Hadley, j.
l. The act of 1899 (Acts 1899, Il. 21O) is I'M
constitutional as an attempt on the part of
the Legislature TO reuglate county business
2. The building of courthouses is county
business under the Constitution.
1891. Insurance Company VS.. Hegewald
Floyd c. c. Petition for rehearing over
1892 Wait VS.. westfall. Marion c. c.
Same
1896 Tucker VS. State ex rel. Marion c.
c. Oral argument Jan. 10. 1904.
Minute
2OOss Lux & Talbot Stone Company VS.
Albert n. Donaldson ct al. Cass G. c. APP
pellees' brief 90 on petition for rehearing
APPELLATE COURT
1852. Zeller VS.. Zeller. Huntington C. C.
Affirmed. Robinson. il Fraud cannot be
the fraud must be pleaded. 2. In order to
set aside the final report of an executor for
fraud ii must be shown that the alleged
false representations in getting a contract
for settlement were made with the intent to
defraud. and that they were such as We're
likely TO deceive a reasonable, prudent per-
son. and that the complaining party acted
on account thereof, and upon discovery of
the fraud repudiated the transaction.
1881. Morgan VS.. Jackson; Marion c. c.
versy is one of fact and the evidence is con-
fiicting and irreconciable the finding of the
jury upon such question of fact is conclu-
stve. .. There can be no reversal on ac-
count of on instruction where the answers
to interrogatories show that such instruc-
ton caused no harm.
5ll2 Crawford VS.. State of Indiana. Sui
Ivan c. c. Affirmed per curtain. Affirmed
upon the authority of West VS. The State.
1856. L. +. & W. Railway Company VS..
Shelley Henry c. G. Appellee petitions to
remove TO Supreme Court.
Minutes
1916. William l.. Henderson VS.. Thomas
Ashley eft al Marion :. G. Appellees' sup
Elemental motion TO dismiss and notice re-
ceived.
Company VS.. Luther Bond. Madison S. G.
Appellee's brief (9.
1900. The Mondamix Meadows Dairy Com
pany VS.. Henry r.. Brude. Allen 5. c. Mo-
tion TO dismiss overruled. Motion for adj
ditional bond sustained.
$3.50. George r. DAILY ct al. vs.. John Cub
bins. Delaware c. G. Appellee's additional
authorities %.
5O56. Isaac Van Wrinkle VS.. n. Y, c &
ST. l.. Railroad Company. Whitley c. c.
Appellee's brief (0.
4472. The Chicago, Indianapolis q Louis
willie Railway Company VS.. George w. Tack
EFT. Clark c. c. Appellee's additional au-
thorities (S).
1850. Lake Erie * Western Railway Com
pany VS. Amberb w. Shelley ct al Henry
{. c. One hundred and thirty-six days no
tice term.
New Cases
Silt. John H. Storer VS.. Phillip NJ Mark
ley. Delaware G. c. Record. Assignment
of errors. In term. Bond.