« ПретходнаНастави »
2. Same.--Stockholders.-An arrange- ment with said officers that he did
ment made by persons who are di- so as surety or guarantor to the bank rectors of a railroad company with for both the other makers, and not a contractor, by which such persons as joint surety with B. After maare to share in the profits of the turity the bank sucd A. B., and C. contract for the construction of the upon the note; C. was “not found;"> road, can only be confirmed by the and judgment was rendered against stockholders, and not by the direct- A. and B. by default, upon their ors of whom the guilty persons form failure to appear. C. paid the bank a part........
.Ibid. the amount of the judgment under
the promise by the bank to assign PROMISE.
it to him.
lleld, that the signing by C. was not See RESCISSION, 4.
such an alteration of the note as
rendered it void as to B. PROMISSORY NOTE.
Held, also, that C. was not a co-surety
with B. See ARBITRATION AND AWARD, 1; Con- Held, also, that C. was entitled to exe
SIDERATION, 2 to 5; IIUSBAND AND cution for his benefit on said judgWIFE, 12; PLEADING, 23, 24, 25; ment against A. and B., and, A. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, 1, 2.
having become insolvent, such exc
cution was properly levied for the 1. Pleading.–Bastardy.—It is not a whole amount thereof upon the
good defense to a suit upon a prom- property of B. Bowser et al. v. Renissory note given in compromise of dell..
...128 a prosecution against the maker for 4. Pleading.--Abatement.—Decedents' bastardy, “that it was understood Estates.- Where the assignee of a that if the child should be born too promissory note, to whom it has soon, or the circumstances would been indorsed in blank by the payee, not make out a casc of bastardy, the dies, intestate, and, there being no note was to be delivered up, and administration upon his estate, his that the child was born eight months widow, the note not having been from the time the defendant first made her property, assigns and inmet the prosecuting witness;" nor is dorses it in blank, and, the intestato it a good answer, “that the defend- having been largely indebted at the ant has since learned that he could time of his death, his debts remain prove he was not the father, but unpaid; or where, in addition to could not make such proof at the these facts, the maker holds a claim date of the compromise." Compton against the estate of the decedent, v. Davidson et al....
02 which in a suit by his administrator 2. Party Plaintiff.--It is not necessary would be a proper set-off; in an ac
that the plaintiff in a suit upon a tion against the maker by one to promissory note should be the legal whom the assignee of the widow owner thereof;—it is sufficient if he has indorsed the note in blank, upon
is the equitable owner.. ....Ibid. the note as if indorsed by the payce 3. Principal and Surety.- Co-Surety.- to the plaintiff, an answer, verified
Alteration of Writing.--A promis- by affidavit, setting forth these facts sory note payable to and at a certain and praying that the suit abate is bank was signed by A. and B., the good on demurrer.
Stebbins v. former being the maker and the Goldthwait et al......... .......159 latter his surety, and delivered by 5. Same.- General Denial.-- An anA., for a valuable consideration, to swer of general denial not sworn to C., who, for the purpose of having it would not, under our code, put the discounted for his benefit at said plaintiff upon proof of the genuincbank, it having been prepared by A. ness of the indorsement as shown and B. with that expectation, signed by the complaint, or admit evidence the note as maker, without the of the facts set up in such answer in knowledge or consent of B., upon
........ Ibid. the requirement of the officers of 6. Corporation.-Party Plaintiff.--A the bank, but with the express agree
note made payable to the treasurer near the railroad track, and the enof what purports to be a corporation, gines should be operated with care wi out giving the
name of the and skill to the same end. If fire treasurer, is, in cffect, payable to is communicated to such property the corporation, and shows that the from an engine by reason of a failure corporation is the party in interest; to use proper preventives, or by the and a suit on the note is properly carelessness of employees, the combrought in the name of the corpora
pany is liable for the consequences; tion. McBroom v. The Corporation but negligence in either respect of Lebanon........
.268 should not be inferred without proof,
the burden of which rests on the PROVISION.
party alleging it.................... Ibid.
4. Same.- Watchman.—The railroad For wife.
Sce VOLUNTART COVEY- company is not bound to provide a ANCE, 2.
watchman to protect property so placed by the owner, at his own instance, without any contract with
the company, in danger of taking RAILROAD.
fire by unavoidable accident from
the engines used by the compaSce Common CARRIER, 5, 6.
5. Negligence.—Liability for Injury 1. Fences.-Where a railroad passes to Employee.-Suit by an adminis
upon an embankment erected in the trator, for the benefit of the children bed of a canal, such embankment and heirs at law of the deceased, must be guarded by fences. The against a railroad company, the White Water Valley R. R. Co. v. complaint alleging, that the deceQuick .....
....127 dent had been in the employment 2. Negligence.--Pleading.–Where the of the defendant as fireman on &
owner of a quantity of cord-wood freight engine for about two months, deposits the same at a certain place when, or a day mentioned, he was near a railroad track, in accordance ordered by defendant to serve as firewith the direction of an agent of the man on a particular engine attached railroad company and under an to an express passenger train, then agreement with such agent by which running on said road between cerit is to become the property of the tain points named; that said engine railroad company when measured "was old and rickety, with a weak, and paid for by the company, but defective, patched up, and leaky boiluntil so measured and paid for to er," which was not strong enough remain the property of such owner, to endure a gh pressure of steam, and while so remaining his property and could not be used with safety it is consumed by fire originating in drawing a train of any kind, and from a locomotive engine in the use that its use to an express train, in of the company and caused by the its weak and unsafe condition, innegligence of the employees of the volved great peril to the lives of the company, and these facts are averred passengers and employees; that the in the complaint in a suit by such deceased did not know, and had owner against the company to re- no means of knowing, the weak and cover the value of the wood; it is unsafe condition of said engine when not necessary to allege also the de- he was placed upon it as fireman; struction of the wood without the that defendant, with full knowledge fault or negligence of the plaintiff. of the defective and unsafe condiThe Indianapolis f Cin. R. R. Co.v. tion thereof, carelessly and negliParamore.
143 gently caused the same to used in 3. Same.-- Burden of Proof. It is drawing said express train; that on
the duty of a railroad company to the same day the boiler exploded, by use machinery properly constructed reason of its defective and unsound with a view to prevent fire from be- condition, and caused the death of ing communicated to property law- the decedent, without any neglifully placed by the owner thereof gence or fault on his part.
Held, that the complaint was good on proper construction of its road, in
demurrer. Columbus f I. C. Rail- supplying it with the necessary
way Co. v. Arnold, Adm'r..........174 equipment, including properly con-
employer or 'master is not liable, in and proper materials for its repair,
directors of a railroad company are competent and trusworthy master-
....Ibid. so used, sufficient to render the com-
chinist who has the immcdiate man employed by the company,
Ibid. the fault or negligence of the engi-
tion of master to the employee. Ibid. lieved from liability by the fact that
duty of a railroad corporation to point where the animal was killed.
Co. v. Avery
13. Consolidated Companies.--A rail- attempting to alight from the train
See WITNESS, 2.
See RAILROAD, 14, 15.
.......Ibid. REASONABLE DOCBT.
See INSANITY, 4.
not to condemn unless the evidence
excludes from his mind all rcasona-
ble doubt as to the guilt of the ac-
cused—that is, unless he is so con-
vinced by the evidence, no matter
what the class of the evidence, of
the defendant's guilt, that a prudent
man would feel safe to act upon that
conviction in matters of the highest
concern and importance to his own
dearest personal interests, under cir-
cumstances where there was no
compulsion resting upon him to act
at all. Arnold v. The State, 23 Ind.
170, explained. Bradley v. The
2. Same.--On the trial of an indict-
ment for murder in the first degree,
the court instructed the jury, in ef-
fect, that if the evidence satisfied
them of the guilt of the defendant
with such certainty that a prudent
man would feel safe in acting upon
such conviction in his own import-
ant affairs, then, in such case, there
would be no reasonable doubt of the
Co. v. Farrell.............. .....408
Sec IXJUNCTION, 1.
made default in the payment of in-
terest on purchase money, the lands
were resold. By the law in force at
the time of his purchase, a default-
ing purchaser had a right to redeem
within one year after salc; by that
in force at the time of the resalc and
at the time of the default, a delin-
quent purchaser could redeem at
any time before sale, but not after.
Held, that the right to redeem was
governed by the latter law...... Ibid.
1. Afidavit.-In an action of replevin
in the court of common pleas, the
affidavit of the plaintiff for delivery
of the property to him did not stato
whether or not it had been seized
under an attachment against his
Bridges v. Layman et al............384
2. House Treated as Personalty-
Trust.-A., being the owner of a
certain town lot on which was a
dwelling house, built another house
adjoining the former and perma-
nently attached thereto, but stand-
ing in a street of the town, though
he supposed that it was upon a lot.
Becoming financially embarrassed,
he fled the country; and an execu-
tion was issued on a judgment
which had been rendered against
him in favor of B., by virtue of
which the sheriff levied on and sold
said house in the street as personal
property, C. being in possession
thereof at the time of the sale. Af
terwards, the agent of B., who had
C., that by B.'s direction he would let
C. have the house for A. if (. would
pay the amount it had been bid off
at, and also pay said agent a small
upon wrote to A., stating the prop-
osition made by said agent, and
offering to furnish the money and
generally, derived from a statute, replied, advising C. to buy the prop-
statute. Moor v. Seaton............11 balance to the payment of A.'s
A purchaser of school lands having! owner of the lot, purchased the