Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

weather is unusually severe, and proper steps are not taken for the
comfort of children thus excluded, such method of enforcement is
unreasonable and improper.

Ib.
7. Same.-Liability of School Officer.-Error of Judgment.-A school officer
is not personally liable for a mere mistake of judgment in the govern-
ment of his school; but to create liability it must be shown that he
acted in the matter complained of wantonly, wilfully or maliciously.
Ib.

8. Same.-Detention of Pupil After School Hours.-False Imprisonment.-The
detention of a pupil for a short time after school hours, as a penalty
for some omission or misconduct, is one of the recognized methods
of enforcing discipline and promoting the progress of the pupils in the
common schools, and although the detention be mistaken it possesses
none of the elements of false imprisonment, unless imposed from wan-
ton, wilful or malicious motives.

Ib.

9. Same.-Reasonableness of Rule a Question of Law.—Instruction.—It is for
the court to determine, as a matter of law, whether or not a rule is a
reasonable one, and an instruction which confounds the reasonable-
ness of the rule with its unreasonable enforcement, and submits the
matter of reasonableness to the jury as a hypothetic question, depend-
ent upon the existence or non-existence of certain enumerated facts,
thus making the question of validity one of mixed law and fact to be
determined by the jury, is erroneous.
Ib.

SECRETARY OF STATE.

See OFFICE AND Officer, 1, 2.
SET-OFF.

See EVIDENCE, 9; PARTNERSHIP, 2.

SHERIFF'S SALE.

See MARRIED WOMAN, 7.

1. Void Judgment.—Where a judgment is void all proceedings thereunder,
including a sale, are also void.
Ferrier v. Deutchman, 339

2. Same.-Sale Made Under Several Judgments, Some Valid and Some Void.-
A sale made under several judgments, some of which are void and the
others valid and regular, is nevertheless void.
Ib.

3. Purchaser.-Prior Encumbrance.--Effect of Payment by Purchaser.-Where
the equity of redemption in real estate is sold on execution, the
purchaser takes the land charged with all prior encumbrances. The
amount bid will be presumed to be the price or value of the property,
less the encumbrances, and where the purchaser obtains title to the
land, and subsequently pays off pre-existing liens of which he had
notice, he will not be permitted to keep them alive by having them
assigned to himself, when to do so would operate as an injury to an-
other who has the right to have them treated as extinguished.
Bunch v. Grave, 351
4. Same.-Married Woman.-- Mortgage.--G. purchased at sheriff's sale on
execution a tract of land sold as the property of B., subject to the
lien of two prior mortgages executed by B. and wife. Afterwards
the wife of B. had her one-third interest in the land set off to her
under the provisions of the act of March 11, 1875. Subsequently,
G.'s title having matured, he purchased and had assigned to him one
of the prior mortgages, which he caused to be foreclosed, taking the
decree in his own name. The other was foreclosed, and the decree
and judgment purchased by and assigned to G. Both decrees ad-
judged that G.'s interest in the land should be first sold for the pay-

ment of the debts. His interest exceeded in value the amount of the
judgments.
Held, that by the purchase of the mortgage debts by G., they were thereby
extinguished as to Mrs. B., and no longer operated as liens upon her
interest in the land.

Ib.

5. Redemption of Real Estate.-Act of 1861.-Rents and Profits.-Judgment
Debtor Alone Liable for.-Under the redemption law of 1861, no one
except the judgment debtor could be held liable to the execution pur -
chaser for the rents and profits of the real estate during the year
allowed for redemption.
Adams v. Glidden, 528

6. Same.-Act of 1879.-Occupant of Land Liable for Rents and Profits.—
The redemption law of 1879, which superseded that of 1861, made the
occupant, although not the judgment debtor, liable for the rents and
profits of real estate during the year for redemption.

Ib.

7. Same.-Redemption Law of 1881.-No Liability for Rents and Profits by
Virtue of Act.-Under the act of 1881 on the subject of redemption,
no one is liable to the execution purchaser, by virtue of the act alone,
for the rents and profits of real estate during the period allowed for
redemption.
1b.
8. Same.-Vendor's Lien.—Redemption Laws Construed.-A vendor's lien
attached to real estate in 1876. After the taking effect of the redemp-
tion law of 1881, the lien was enforced, and the real estate sold by the
sheriff under the decree of foreclosure. At the time of the fore-
closure and sale, and during the year following the sale, the real
estate was occupied by a grantee of the judgment debtor.

Held, that such occupant is not liable to the execution purchaser for
the rents and profits of the land during the year following the sale,
either under the provisions of the redemption law of 1861 or that

of 1881.

SHORT-HAND REPORTER.
See BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, 3.

SOLDIER'S BOUNTY.

Ib.

1. Military Service.-Liability of County.-Contract.-Mutuality.-Statute of
Limitations.-Where, during the late war, a county appropriated
money to induce, by the payment of bounties, the enlistment of men
in the military service of the United States to fill its quota under a
call for additional troops, an agreement in writing on the part of
men already in the service, procured by one not shown to have been
an agent of the county, to accept the offered bounty and be cred-
ited to such county, is not responsive to the proposition contained in
the order of the county commissioners, but is more in the nature of
a counter-proposition, requiring a further order of the board to make
it binding as a contract, and in the absence of such further order the
contract can not be deemed one wholly in writing, and the six years
statute of limitations is a good defence to an action thereon.
Board, etc., v. Crockett, 316
2. Same.-Consideration.—If a soldier was credited to a certain county
at the time he was mustered in, or if such county then became entitled
to have him so credited, any subsequent promise made to him for
the purpose of obtaining his consent to be credited to that county,
was without consideration.
Ib.

SPECIAL FINDING.

1. Exception to.-Practice.-Motion for New Trial.—A simple exception to a
finding of facts does not raise a question as to whether the finding is in
accordance with or contrary to the evidence, but a motion for a new
trial is necessary.
Gardner v. Case, 494

2. Same. Exception to Conclusions of Law.-Admission.-An exception to
conclusions of law admits, for the purposes of the exception, that the
facts have been fully and correctly found.

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.

See OFFICE AND Officer, 1, 2.

STATE UNIVERSITY.

Ib.

1. Character of Corporation.--Endowment Fund.-Interest.-The State Uni-
versity is not a public corporation, but a private, or at most a quasi
public one, and its endowment fund is not embraced by the phrase
public funds" as used in section 5205, R. S. 1881, fixing the rate of
interest upon the latter class of funds at eight per cent.
State, ex rel., v. Carr, 335
2. Same-Repeal of Statute.-Interest on Public Funds.—Auditor of State.—
Section 4600, R. S. 1881, requiring the auditor of state to loan the
university fund, for which provision is made by section 4595, at seven
per cent. interest, was not repealed by the later enactment, section
5205, fixing the rate of interest on public funds at eight per cent. and
repealing "all acts on the subject of interest, including such as relate
to interest on public funds."
Ib.

STATUTE.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PLEADING, 7.

1. Construction.-Forms.-A form prescribed by statute is an essential and
controlling part of the statute.
Orr v. Meek, 40
2. Repeal by Implication. - Gravel Road Acts.-Separate Systems of Procedure.—
The gravel road law of March 3, 1877, was not repealed by the act of
April 8, 1885, on the same subject; but an intention being manifested
to not repeal the former act, two systems for the construction of gravel
roads and the making and collection of assessments are created.
Deisner v. Simpson, 72 Ind. 435, distinguished. Robinson v. Rippey, 112
3. Same. Similarity of Provisions of Two Statutes.-Inconvenience.-If an in-
tention to construct two systems for the government of the same sub-
ject is manifested, the similarity in the provisions of the two statutes,
and the inconvenience worked thereby, are not sufficient to constitute
a repeal of the earlier one by implication.
Ib.
4. Same.-Later Act Covering Same Subject- Matter.- When Former Act not
Repealed.-The rule that where a later act covers the whole subject-
matter of a former one, and contains irreconcilable provisions, a
repeal will be implied, fails where an intention not to repeal is man-
ifested and where both acts may stand.
Ib.
5. Same.-Incompleteness of Act.-Construction. It is not a sufficient objec-
tion to an act that it is not in itself complete in every part, for in in-
terpreting and enforcing a statute it is not to be considered alone,
but as part of a system of law.

Ib.

6. Construction.-Custom.-A practical construction given to a statute by
custom is equivalent to a positive law. Board, etc., v. Bunting, 143

STATUTE CONSTRUED.

See APPEAL, 8 to 10; ATTORNEY AND CLIENT, 3; CRIMINAL LAW, 3;
INSURANCE, 7, 10; INTOXICATING LIQUOR; SHERIFF'S SALE, 5 to 8;
STATE UNIVERSITY; TAX SALE.

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

See CONTRACT, 5.


STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

See GUARDIAN AND WARD; SOLDIER'S BOUNTY; TRUST AND TRUSTEE.
1. Guardian's Sale of Real Estate.-Adverse Possession.- Ejectment.—Quiet-
ing Title.--Where the purchaser at a guardian's sale, made in 1852,
went into immediate possession of the land, causes of action for the
recovery thereof and to quiet title thereto accrued at that time, and,
even if the sale was void, adverse possession having been continu-
ously held by the purchaser and his grantees, such causes of action
are barred. Sections 293 and 294, R. S. 1881. Walker v. Hill, 223
2. Same.-Disabilities.—Infancy.—Where one is under the disability of
infancy at the time a cause of action in his favor accrues, the statute
of limitations, nevertheless, begins to run, and, under section 296,
R. S. 1881, the only effect of such disability is to give the party, if
the full limitation has run during his infancy, two years after reach-
ing legal age within which he may sue.
Ib.
3. Same.-Infancy and Coverture.-Where the statute of limitations begins
to run during infancy, it is not impeded by the subsequent interven-
tion of the disability of coverture, as one disability can not be tacked
to another to stay the operation of the statute.

Ib.

4. Guardian's Sale.-Legal Disability.-Under section 293, R. S. 1881, an
action for the recovery of real estate sold by a guardian or commis-
sioner of a court must be commenced within five years after the sale
is confirmed; but if the party entitled to maintain the action is
under a legal disability, then, under section 296, if the full period of
limitation has expired during the existence of the disability, the action
must be brought within two years after its removal.

Davidson v. Bates, 391

STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS.

See CORPORATION; TAXES.

STREET RAILWAY.

See NEGLIGENCE, 4 to 7.

SUBROGATION.

See MORTGAGE, 7; PRINCIPAL AND Agent, 1.

SUMMONS.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 10; NOTICE.

SUPREME COURT.

See APPEAL; ATTACHMENT, 1; BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; CONTINUANCE;
CRIMINAL LAW, 12, 13, 16, 18, 31; PRACTICE.

1. Instructions to Jury.-Evidence Not in Record.Where the evidence is
not in the record, the Supreme Court can not say that instructions
given or refused were erroneous.
Low v. Deiner, 46

--

2. Practice.-Appeal.-Showing of Error.- Reversal of Judgment. Unless
the record affirmatively shows the existence of error, and that it was,
or probably was, prejudicial to the party complaining, the judgment
will not be reversed.
Harter v. Eltzroth, 159
3. Brief-Mere Restating of Causes for New Trial.-The mere restating in
a brief of the causes assigned for a new trial does not meet the require-
ments of the rule of the Supreme Court relating to briefs.
Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Donnegan, 179
4. Same.-References to Record. -Parties asking for a reversal of a judg
ment must furnish references to such portions of the record as will
show that error intervened in the proceedings below.

1b.

5. Joint Assignment of Error.-Sufficiency of.—A joint assignment of errors

by two or more appellants will not present any question for decision
unless it is good as to all who have united therein.

Walker v. Hill, 223
6. Law of Case.- Decision of Supreme Court.--The decision of the Supreme
Court in a cause remains the law of the case in all subsequent pro-
ceedings.
Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Houser, 266
7. Assignment of Error.-Joint Assignment.-Effect of.-Complaint Good as to
One Appellant. Where a complaint is good as to one appellant, a
joint assignment of errors will not prevail against it.

[ocr errors]

Rogers v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 343
8. Instructions to Jury.--Applicability to Evidence.-Practice.- Where the
evidence is not properly in the record, no available question can be
predicated upon the giving or the refusal to give instructions, the
correctness of which depends upon the facts. Lyon v. Davis, 384

9. Certiorari.-Rules of Trial Court.-The Supreme Court will not take
notice of the existence of the rules of a trial court unless they are
properly in the record on appeal, and will not require the clerk, by
writ of certiorari, to certify such rules, unless embraced in a bill of
exceptions or ordered by the court to be so certified. Rout v. Ninde, 597
SURETY.

See APPEAL, 11; ATTACHMENT, 2 to 5; CONVEYANCE, 3; GUARANTY;
HUSBAND AND WIFE; JUDGMENT, 15; MARRIED WOMAN; MORT-
GAGE, 4, 8; OFFICE and OFFICER, 4; PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

SURFACE WATER.

See NUISANCE.

TAXES.

See TAX SALE.

1. Assessment of National Bank Stock.-Right of Owner to Deduct Indebtedness.
-The owner of national bank stock is entitled to deduct from its
value, if he have no other credits from which the deduction can be
made, the amount of the bona fide debts owing by him.

City of Indianapolis v. Vajen, 240
2. Same.-Refusal to Allow Deduction.-Erroneous Assessment.-City.-Re-
funding Taxes Erroneously Collected.-Where a taxpayer, in making his
assessment list for city taxation, gives notice of his indebtedness,
but does not enter it upon his list, and demands of the assessor the
right to deduct from the value of his national bank stock the amount
of his bona fide indebtedness, which that officer refuses to allow on
the ground that such deduction is not authorized by law, and after-
wards makes a like demand of the city treasurer before paying his
taxes, which is also refused, the assessment, to the extent of the
deduction improperly denied, is erroneous, and the taxpayer is entitled
to have the excess of taxes collected refunded, whether paid volun-
tarily or not, and without appearing before the board of equalization
and there attempting to have the assessment corrected.
Ib.

TAX SALE.

1. Deed.-Permanent Improvements.- Adverse Title-A purchaser of land
at a tax sale, who has received a tax deed and taken possession and
made permanent improvements, but whose deed is not effectual to
convey title, can only recover for such improvements as were made
after receiving his deed and before notice of an adverse claim to the
land.
Hilgenberg v. Rhodes, 167
2. Same.-Statute Construed. When Recovery Had for Improvements.-Sec-
tion 253, of the tax law of 1872, providing that the purchaser "shall

« AnteriorContinuar »