HOWARD NAT. BANK v. Alfred E. GOR- 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. John B. Joyce, of Kokomo, for appellant. Jesse Sanford and B. F. Watson, both of Indianapolis, for appellant. Albert B. Chipman, of Akron, for appel lee. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. 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. (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 (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 ABORTION. (E) Duration and Continuity of Pos- ~II (III.) Evidence held sufficient to prove ABSTRACTS OF TITLE. (F) Hostile Character of Possession. 3 (Ind.App.) Abstractor not liable to sub- ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. See Compromise and Settlement. 10(1) (N.Y.) Acceptance of award made ACKNOWLEDGMENT. I. NATURE AND NECESSITY. II. TAKING AND CERTIFICATE. permissive use-Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378. 68 (II.) Possession must be under claim (G) Payment of Taxes. 91 (III.) Possession and payment of taxes III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND ~114(1) (11.) Not made out by inference or 20(1) (Ind.App.) Before officer party to or See Principal and Agent. ACTION. See Dismissal and Nonsuit. ADJOINING LANDOWNERS. See Boundaries; Party Walls. ADMINISTRATION. See Executors and Administrators. ADOPTION. ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. ANIMALS. 7 (N.Y.) Evidence held not to show aban- See Railroads, 411. APPEAL AND ERROR. See Courts, 219, 220; Criminal Law, For review of rulings in particular actions or ics. I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY. (Ind.App.) Right of appeal statutory.- 4 (Ohio) Action held appealable to Court (929) |