(145 N.E.)

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.


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.

[blocks in formation]

(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.





It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and

Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests


(E) Duration and Continuity of Pos-

ell (III.) Evidence held sufficient to prove
that accused was person who committed of Cm. 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.

cm3 (Ind.App.) Abstractor not liable to sub (F) Hostile Character of Possession.
sequent purchaser for defects in abstract.--Oh-60(2) (III.) Limitations do not run against
mart v. Citizens' Savings & Trust Co., 145 N. permissive use. ---Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.
E. 577.

Omw 60(4) (III.) Permissive possession must

become adverse to start limitations.--Jones v.

cm 68 (III.) Possession must be under claim
See Compromise and Settlement.

of ownership by party seeking benefit of limi-
10(1) (N.Y.) Acceptance of award made tation.-Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.
by Industrial Commission without jurisdiction

(G) Payment of Tares.
is accord and satisfaction.--Brassel v. Electric
Welding Co. of America, 145 N. E. 745. Cm91 (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.
6(2) (Ind.App.) Before officer party to or


beneficially interested in mortgage, void and
instrument not entitled to record.-People's Com 114(!) (111.) Not made out by inference or
State Bank v. Buchanan, 145 N. E. 898.

implication.-Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.

Om20(I) (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.


See Husband and Wife, w326.
See Dismissal and Nonsuit.


Omil() (Ind.) Unauthorized alteration of

note without maker's knowledge avoids it.
See Boundaries; Party Walls.

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
See Executors and Administrators.

Fayette Auto Co., 145 N. E. 833.


7 (N.Y.) Evidence held not to show aban- See Railroads, Cw411.
donment decisively.--In re Bistany, 145 N. E.


See Courts, enw 219, 220; Criminal Law,

1004–1178; Exceptions, Bill of.

For review of rulings in particular actions or
(A) Acquisition of Rights by Prescrip-
tion in General.

proceedings, see also the various specific top-

em 13 (III.) Possession must be hostile, actual,
visible, notorious, and exclusive.-Jones

Scott, 145 N. E. 378.

Ciol (Ind. App.) Right of appeal statutory:-

Jerzakowski v. City of South Bend, 145 N. E.
(B) Actual Possession.

Om 16(1) (III.) Shown by acts of proprietorship 4 (Ohio) Action held appealable to Court
as well as verbal claims.-Jones v. Scott, 145 of Appeals as cause in chancery.-W. C. Mc-
N. E. 378.

Bride, Inc., v. Murphy, 145 N. E. 855.
145 N.E.-59


[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »