« ForrigeFortsett »
5 William H. GROENENDYKE v. Clara GROĖ. Mary B. KEPPER V. Rosa BANEY et al. NENDYKE. (No. 11948.)
(No. 11839.) (Appellate Court of Indiana. Dec. 4, 1924.) (Appellate Court of Indiana. Nov. 6, 1924.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski Coun
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; W. C. Pentecost, Judge.
ty; H. 0. Chamberlain, Judge. Harry C. Miller, of North Judson, for ap Chas. W. Rollinson, of Indianapolis, for pellant.
appellant. James C. Fletcher and Wm. J. Reed, both James L. Mitchell, of Indianapolis, for apof Knox, for appellee.
pellees. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
6 HOWARD NAT. BANK V. Alfred E. GOR Alice KROFT V. Ulysses S. KROFT. DON. (No. 11931.)
(No. 11954.) (Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1. (Appellate Court of Indiana. Nov. 20, 1924.) Nov. 14, 1924.)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall CounAppeal from Circuit Court, Tipton County ; ty; Reuben R. Carr, Judge. James Purvis, Judge.
Jesse Sanford and B. F. Watson, both of John B. Joyce, of Kokomo, for appellant. Indianapolis, for appellant. Fred J. Byers, of Kokomo, for appellee. Albert B. Chipman, of Akron, for appel
lee. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. .
7 William R. JAMISON V. Bert FRUITS.
Emma 0. McCORMICK, Surviving Partner, (No. 11926.)
etc., v. John J. PARKER. (Appellate Court of Indiana. Dec. 2, 1924.)
(No. 11959.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Starke Coun-|(Appellate Court of Indiana. Nov, 18, 1924.) ty; W. C. Pentecost, Judge.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan CounWm. J. Reed, of Knox, for appellant. ty; Walter Wood, Judge. Harry C. Miller, of North Judson, and F.
Lindley & Bedwell, of Sullivan, for apM. Trissal, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Martin L. Pigg, of Sullivan, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
4 Wm. P. JUNGCLAUS v. Hazel McCURNES.
8 (No. 12018.)
Harry MARTIN and Wm. J. Everwein, Trustee
for Harry Martin, v. John L. RECK. (Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.
(No. 11920.) Nov. 12, 1924.)
(Appellate Court of Indiana. Nov. 20, 1924.) Appeal from Industrial Board. White, Wright & McKay, of Indianapolis,
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tipton County: for appellant.
James M. Purvis, Judge. Wm. E. Reiley, of Indianapolis, for appel Geo. W. Osborn, of Sheridan, for appellee.
Gentry, Cloe & Campbell, of Noblesville, REMY, J. Affirmed, on authority of Amer- for appellee. ican Leather, etc., Co. v. Stone (1920) 74 Ind. App. 547, 129 N. E. 264.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
3 Roy MARTINDALE et al. v. Thos. I. COR. Nathan OPPENHEIM v. Franklin NAGLE. BIN. (No. 11929.)
(No. 11992.) (Appellate Court of Indiana. Dec. 19, 1924.) (Appellate Court of Indiana. Dec. 9, 1924.)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall CounThos. Van Buskirk, Judge.
ty; R. Carr, Judge. Slinkard & Slinkard, of Bloomfield, for ap Martindale & Martindale, of Plymouth, for pellants.
appellant. Guy H. Humphreys, of Bloomfield, for ap S. N. Stevens, of Plymouth, and Holman, pellee.
Bernetha & Miller, of Rochester, for appel
lee. PER CURIAM. The only proper assign
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. ment 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 ap
4 pellants have not set out a concise statement of the evidence in their brief, and insists RAILWAY SERVICE & SUPPLY CORPO.
RATION V. James CARPENTER and C., that no question is presented for our deter.
C., C. & ST. L. R. R. (No. 12027.) mination. The decisions of the Supreme and this court, sustaining appellee's conten- (Appellate Court of Indiana. Dec. 17, 1924.) tion as to each specification in the motion for a new trial, are numerous and decisive.
Appeal from Industrial Board. See Clemens v. Stoner, 73 Ind. App. 370, 126 Geo. Edwards and Turner, Adams, MerN. E. 487; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Retz, 71 rell & Locke, all of Indianapolis, for appelInd. App. 581, 585, 586, 125 N. E. 424; Leedy lant. v. Idle, Trustee, 69 Ind. App. 105, 107, 121 J. Burdette Lutz, of Jeffersonville, for apN. E. 323; Webster V. Bligh, 50 Ind. App. pellees. 56, 98 N. E. 73; Jeffersonville School Tp. v.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. 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. 31, 103 N. E. 839; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v.
5 Bowen, 179 Ind. 142, 145, 100 N. E. 465; Huff Anton SLAZYK v. Sebastian NOWAK. man v. Thompson, 177 Ind. 366, 368, 98 N.
(No. 11946.) E. 113; Washington Hotel Realty Co. v.
(Appellate Court of Indiana. Nov. 6, 1924.) Bedford Stone, etc., Co. (Ind. Sup.) 143 N. E. 156; Gary, etc., R. Co. v. Hacker, 58 Ind. App. Appeal from Superior Court, Lake County; 618, 620, 108 N. E. 756.
C. E. Greenwald, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
D. P. Sevold and Fred Barnett, both of Hammond, for appellant.
Spychalski & Wiltrout, of Gary, for appellee.
(145 N.E.) 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 plain Exceptions overruled. tiff or of the defendant. The finding of the judge who heard the case without a jury was in favor of the plaintiff. This imported
2 a finding of all subsidiary facts necessary to OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. Abner C. reach that conclusion. All the requests of
SPAULDING et al. the defendant for rulings were predicated up
(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. on the theory that the plaintiff of his own
Bristol. Dec. 5, 1924.) voluntary act left the employment without discharge by the defendant. They all were T. F. Quinn, of Boston, and J. J. Caffrey, denied by the judge on the ground that he of South Boston, for petitioner, did "not find the facts to be such as to make A. L. Millan, of Boston, for respondents. defendant's requests for rulings applicable." The whole case presented simply a question RUGG, C. J. This is an appeal from an of fact for decision on conflicting evidence. order of the probate court denying an appli. No error of law is disclosed.
cation to frame a jury issue on the soundExceptions overruled.
ness 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 1
the judge. The principles of law governing Frank F. GRABB V. NAHANT & LYNN a case of this nature under the existing stat. STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
utes have been stated at length in numerous
recent decisions. Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
49, 133 N. E. 384; Cook v. Mosher, 243 Mass. Essex. Dec. 5, 1924.)
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.
V. Sokoll, 247 Mass. 203, 142 N. E. 55; Old Henry R. Mayo, of Lynn, for defendant.
Colony Trust Co. v. Pepper, 248 Mass. 263,
142 N. E. 817. It must be assumed in the PER CURIAM. This is an action of tort absence of anything to indicate the contrary to recover compensation for damages sus- that the judge in reaching his conclusion was tained by a passenger on a car of the defend-guided by these principles. It would serve ant. As he was alighting, the heel of the no useful purpose to narrate or summarize right shoe of the passenger caught in a crack the evidence. Giving to the decision of the or opening, apparently made as a part of probate court only the weight to which it is the construction of the car. The steps could entitled, it cannot be said that there was erbe pulled up and let down. There is nothing ror of law in the conclusion reached therein. in the evidence to show negligence on the Order affirmed.
END OF CASES IN VOL. 145
KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
(E) Duration and Continuity of Pos-
mainderman to tack possession of former life
Omw 60(4) (III.) Permissive possession must
become adverse to start limitations.--Jones v.
cm 68 (III.) Possession must be under claim
of ownership by party seeking benefit of limi-
(G) Payment of Tares.
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, TRJAL, AND
implication.-Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.
See Husband and Wife, w326.
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
Omil() (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.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
See Courts, enw 219, 220; Criminal Law,
1004–1178; Exceptions, Bill of.
For review of rulings in particular actions or
proceedings, see also the various specific top-
I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY.
Ciol (Ind. App.) Right of appeal statutory:-
Jerzakowski v. City of South Bend, 145 N. E.
Bride, Inc., v. Murphy, 145 N. E. 855.