The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-05-26
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
APPELLATE COURT.

soof Stone Company VS.. Stages. Greene
Z. g Reversed. Wiley, jim an action by
servant against a master for injuries
caused by the latter's negligence the COM
plant must aver a want of knowledge on
the part OF the former of the acts of negli-
gence causing the injuries, and knowledge
s2s2 Becker VS.. State of Indiana La
porte S. c. Affirmed. Robinson. jim
charging an offense under Section 2291
the defendant with running freight train
and freight cars as switchman." Said Sec
tlon appiles TO cut of cars as we'll as to
complete train.
s726. Stultz VS.. Water Works Company.
Huntington c. c. Affirmed. Black, c. j.
Where a person has once recovered judg-
ment for damages on account of an inva-
sion of his rights ne cannot afterward be
granted inJunctive relief upon the same
facts.
4n5 Vanatta VS.: Warehouse. Allen S.
c. Affirmed. Robinson. il A defect
in complaint on account of lack of pray
er for judgment cannot be reached by de-
murrer. z. Where there is some evidence
IN the record to support the finding of the
court the Judgment will not be reversed for
want of evidence.
400 B. & o. s. w. Railway Company
Ccmstock, il. A general allegation of
negligence in complaint is sufficient to with
stand a demurrer for want of facts, unless
the contrary appears from the facts plead
ed. 2 The violation of a city ordinance
In the manner of running cars across the
streets is negligence per Sc. g. The mere
fact that a railroad company is negligent in
operating its cars over a crossing does not
relieve traveller from exercising care for
his own safety, commensurate with the
danger when he has knowledge thereof 4.
Unless there was a purpose to infiict in
jury 1t cannot be said that an injury was
Intentionally done.
1888. Tuchshuber VS.. Krewson. Wells C.
G.. Reversed. Black. c. J.-Where a tes-
tator does not describe in his will a part
OF his property, yet ii may be distributed
under the Will by provision therein which
directs that all property remaining after
the payment of certain requests be divided
among certain legateeS.
A47. Standard Oil Company VS. Fordeck
Porter S. c. Affirmed. Henley, il. No
tice of unassumed danger must be given to
the employe before the service involving il
is required in order to relieve the employer
trom negligence in that particular. 2.
Where there is some evidence to support
the verdict the judgment will not be dis
turbed for lack of evidence.
Az; Aetna, etc. co. vs.. Earlandon. Por-
employee cannot be held responsible or neg
ligent for exposing himself to a danger OF
which he knew nothing and of which he
was under no obligation to inform him
self. 2. Nor is he bound to guard against
any peril which he has no reason to sus-
pect existing.
5945 Staff VS.. State of Indiana. Hunting
tor c.. c. Affirmed Henley. ii In
charging an unlawful sale of liquors under
Section 1873, Burns, 1901, IL is not necessary
that the indictment should state that the
sale was made for the purpose of gain 2
The examination of jurors touching their
competency TO act al jurors In cause can
not be brought In TO the record by bill of
exceptions. j. Instructions in a criminal
cause can only be made a part of the record
by bill of exceptions.
al. Wilkinson VS.. Wilkinson. Jay c. C.
Affirmed. Henley, il. A mere exception
to the conclusion of law admits that the
facts upon which it was stated were cor
rectly found. .. Where the statutes of
limitation ran against plaintiff while he
was under legal disability as a minor he
must bring his action within two years
after the disability is removed.
4443. Webster VS.. Major. Putnam c. c.
Affirmed. Wiley. il. If after the death
of one partner the surviving partners con-
tinue the business, they will be regarded
as trustees, and hold the assets of the
firm for the benefit of creditors and other
persons interested therein. 2. The personal
property of a partnership is subject to par
tition. and court of equity has the power
to decree such partition. 8. When no steps
are taken under the statute to settle part
nership business by the surviving partner,
the court upon proper application will ap-
point receiver at any time for that pur-
pose. 4. Nonperformance of a bond is
excused when for any reason other than
| becomes impossible.
4T94 Nichols VS.. r. & o. s. w. r.. r. Co.
Lawrence {. c. Petition for rehearing
overruled Roby p. J.-Under Section 95q6
Burns. 1901, the presumption of negligence
on the part of plaintiff in personal injury
cases is removed
4674. Stewart VS.. Knight & Jillson Com
pany Marion s c. Reversed Wiley n :
Where, in order 10 secure credit for a
party, the following writing was addressed
Knight Jillson, Dear Sirs-Please let
the bearer, Carvin Larkin. have whatever
he wants at any time, and | will see that
i: is paid for. NJ. J. Stewart" Held. that
such writing is a collateral undertaking
and notice OF accentanea thereof and do