Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

HOWARD NAT. BANK v. Alfred E. GOR-
DON. (No. 11931.)

6

Alice KROFT v. Ulysses S. KROFT. (No. 11954.)

(Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1. (Appellate Court of Indiana. Nov. 20, 1924.)

Nov. 14, 1924.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall Coun

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tipton County; ty; Reuben R. Carr, Judge.
James Purvis, Judge.

John B. Joyce, of Kokomo, for appellant.
Fred J. Byers, of Kokomo, for appellee.

[blocks in formation]

Jesse Sanford and B. F. Watson, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Albert B. Chipman, of Akron, for appel

lee.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

[blocks in formation]

Roy MARTINDALE et al. v. Thos. I. CORBIN. (No. 11929.)

(Appellate Court of Indiana. Dec. 19, 1924.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Thos. Van Buskirk, Judge.

Slinkard & Slinkard, of Bloomfield, for appellants.

Guy H. Humphreys, of Bloomfield, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The only proper assignment of error relates to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial. Each specification in this motion requires a consideration of the evidence. Appellee calls attention to the fact that appellants have not set out a concise statement of the evidence in their brief, and insists that no question is presented for our determination. The decisions of the Supreme and this court, sustaining appellee's contention as to each specification in the motion for a new trial, are numerous and decisive. See Clemens v. Stoner, 73 Ind. App. 370, 126 N. E. 487; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Retz, 71 Ind. App. 581, 585, 586, 125 N. E. 424; Leedy v. Idle, Trustee, 69 Ind. App. 105, 107, 121 N. E. 323; Webster v. Bligh, 50 Ind. App. 56, 98 N. E. 73; Jeffersonville School Tp. v. School City, etc., 50 Ind. App. 178, 182, 96 N. E. 662; Rose v. City of Jeffersonville, 185 Ind. 577, 579, 114 N. E. 85; McClellan v. Thomas, 183 Ind. 310, 109 N. E. 44; Cleveland v. Hayes, 181 Ind. 87, 107, 102 N. E. 34, 103 N. E. 839; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen, 179 Ind. 142, 145, 100 N. E. 465; Huffman v. Thompson, 177 Ind. 366, 368, 98 N. E. 113; Washington Hotel Realty Co. v. Bedford Stone, etc., Co. (Ind. Sup.) 143 N. E. 156; Gary, etc., R. Co. v. Hacker, 58 Ind. App. 618, 620, 108 N. E. 756.

Judgment affirmed.

2

Albert M. MILLER v. Otto ZENDEL et al. (No. 11976.)

(Appellate Court of Indiana. Nov. 7, 1924.)

Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; T. J. Moll, Judge.

Clyde H. Jones, of La Fayette, for appellant.

L. Russell Newgent, of Indianapolis, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

[blocks in formation]

(145 N.E.)

Exceptions overruled.

2

SPAULDING et al.

plaintiff to the defendant under an agree- part of the defendant. The case is governed ment to work by the month. The term of by Coleman v. Boston Elevated Railway, 249 service was ended in the midst of a monthly Mass. 155, 158, 143 N. E. 819, and cases there period. The evidence was conflicting wheth- collected. er it ended because of conduct of the plaintiff or of the defendant. The finding of the judge who heard the case without a jury was in favor of the plaintiff. This imported a finding of all subsidiary facts necessary to OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. Abner C. reach that conclusion. All the requests of the defendant for rulings were predicated upon the theory that the plaintiff of his own voluntary act left the employment without discharge by the defendant. They all were denied by the judge on the ground that he did "not find the facts to be such as to make defendant's requests for rulings applicable." The whole case presented simply a question of fact for decision on conflicting evidence. No error of law is disclosed. Exceptions overruled.

Frank F. GRABB v. NAHANT & LYNN
STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Essex. Dec. 5, 1924.)

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Bristol. Dec. 5, 1924.)

T. F. Quinn, of Boston, and J. J. Caffrey, of South Boston, for petitioner. A. L. Millan, of Boston, for respondents.

RUGG, C. J. This is an appeal from an order of the probate court denying an application to frame a jury issue on the soundness of mind of an alleged testatrix, on a petition for the allowance of a will. The case comes before us with full report of oral evidence, together with findings of fact by the judge. The principles of law governing a case of this nature under the existing statutes have been stated at length in numerous recent decisions. Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. 49, 133 N. E. 384; Cook v. Mosher, 243 Mass. 149, 137 N. E. 299; Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 140 N. E. 922; Burroughs v.

H. A. Bowen and J. M. Fogarty, both of White, 246 Mass. 258, 140 N. E. 940; Connell Lynn, for plaintiff.

Henry R. Mayo, of Lynn, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. This is an action of tort to recover compensation for damages sustained by a passenger on a car of the defendant. As he was alighting, the heel of the right shoe of the passenger caught in a crack or opening, apparently made as a part of the construction of the car. The steps could be pulled up and let down. There is nothing in the evidence to show negligence on the

v. Sokoll, 247 Mass. 203, 142 N. E. 55; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Pepper, 248 Mass. 263, 142 N. E. 817. It must be assumed in the absence of anything to indicate the contrary that the judge in reaching his conclusion was guided by these principles. It would serve no useful purpose to narrate or summarize the evidence. Giving to the decision of the probate court only the weight to which it is entitled, it cannot be said that there was error of law in the conclusion reached therein. Order affirmed.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 145

INDEX-DIGEST

KEY NUMBER SYSTEM

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX

It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests

ABORTION.

(E) Duration and Continuity of Pos-
session.

~II (III.) Evidence held sufficient to prove
that accused was person who committed of- 43(6) (III.) Permitting life tenant and re-
fense.-People v. Pigatti, 145 N. E. 608.
mainderman to tack possession of former life
tenant held proper.-Brown v. Ray, 145 N. E.
676.

ABSTRACTS OF TITLE.

(F) Hostile Character of Possession.

3 (Ind.App.) Abstractor not liable to sub-
sequent purchaser for defects in abstract.-Oh-~60(2) (III.) Limitations do not run against
mart v. Citizens' Savings & Trust Co., 145 N.
E. 577.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

See Compromise and Settlement.

10(1) (N.Y.) Acceptance of award made
by Industrial Commission without jurisdiction
is accord and satisfaction.-Brassel v. Electric
Welding Co. of America, 145 N. E. 745.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

I. NATURE AND NECESSITY.
6(2) (Ind.App.) Before officer party to or
beneficially interested in mortgage, void and
instrument not entitled to record.-People's
State Bank v. Buchanan, 145 N. E. 898.

II. TAKING AND CERTIFICATE.

permissive use-Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.
60(4) (III.) Permissive possession must
become adverse to start limitations.-Jones v.
Scott, 145 N. E. 378.

68 (II.) Possession must be under claim
of ownership by party seeking benefit of limi-
tation.-Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.

(G) Payment of Taxes.

91 (III.) Possession and payment of taxes
held not to give title to part of adjoining lot
where paper title did not cover it.-Nilson
Bros. v. Kahn, 145 N. E. 340.

III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND
REVIEW.

~114(1) (11.) Not made out by inference or
implication.-Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.
AGENCY.

20(1) (Ind.App.) Before officer party to or See Principal and Agent.
beneficially interested in mortgage, void.-Peo-
ple's State Bank v. Buchanan, 145 N. E. 898.

ACTION.

See Dismissal and Nonsuit.

ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.

See Boundaries; Party Walls.

ADMINISTRATION.

See Executors and Administrators.

ADOPTION.

ALIENATING AFFECTIONS.
See Husband and Wife, 326.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
~~11(1) (Ind.) Unauthorized alteration of
note without maker's knowledge avoids it.-
Born v. La Fayette Auto Co., 145 N. E. 833.
23 (Ind.) Holder of negotiable instrument
avoided by alteration without fraudulent in-
tent may recover on original debt.-Born v. La
Fayette Auto Co., 145 N. E. 833.

ANIMALS.

7 (N.Y.) Evidence held not to show aban- See Railroads, 411.
donment decisively.-In re Bistany, 145 N. E.
70.

[blocks in formation]

APPEAL AND ERROR.

See Courts, 219, 220; Criminal Law,
1004-1178; Exceptions, Bill of.

For review of rulings in particular actions or
proceedings, see also the various specific top-

ics.

I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY.

(Ind.App.) Right of appeal statutory.-
Jerzakowski v. City of South Bend, 145 N. E.
520.

4 (Ohio) Action held appealable to Court
of Appeals as cause in chancery.-W. C. Mc-
Bride, Inc., v. Murphy, 145 N. E. 855.

(929)

« ForrigeFortsett »