Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

cinnati & H. Spring Co. v. Brown (Ind. App.) | Openiug or vacating judgment, see "Judgment,” 197.

8 4. In a personal injury case, the averment that Remand by appellate court for new trial, see defendant's negligence caused decedent's death

“Appeal and Error," $ 25. is a sufficient allegation of proximate cause. -8 1. Nature and scope of remedy. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Stephenson (Ind. Under Prac. Act, $ 56 (3 Starr & C. Ann. App.) 270.

St. 1896, c. 110, par. 57), a party held not to Under the express provisions of Burns' Rev. have waived his right to insist on a motion for St. 1901, $ 339a, it is not necessary, in a com

a new trial and on the reasous therefor.-Landt plaint for negligently occasioning the death of v. McCullough (Ill.) 107. plaintiff's intestate, to negative his_contribu Where defendants' excluded testimony bore tory negligence.-Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. upon their liability to only two of several plaisStephenson (Ind. App.) 270.

tiffs, defendants' motiou that an adverse verIn determining the issue of contributory neg. diet be set aside as to all the plaintiffs on that ligence, the jury are not limited to the con- account is properly overruled.-Board of Com'rs sideration of defendant's evidence alone.-Chi- of Clay County v. Redifer (Ind. App.) 305. cago & E. I. R. Co. v. Stephenson (Ind. App.) 8 2. Grounds. 270.

Newly discovered evidence held not cumula. Instruction, in action for death of railroad tive, within the rule as to new trials.-Union fireman, as to evidence to be considered on is- Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Loughmiller (Ind. App.) sue of contributory negligence, held not er- 264. roneous.-Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Stephen Diligence, authorizing a new trial for newly son (Ind. App.) 270.

discovered evidence, held not shown.-Union The presumption that one suing for injuries Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Loughmiller (Ind. App.) alleged to be due to defendant's negligence is 264. overcome by specific averments of facts showing Under Burns' Rev. St. 1901, $ 568, providing that plaintiff knew or might have known of the that a new trial may be granted for newly disdanger, and, knowing, did not use commensu. covered evidence, an affidavit held sufficient.-rate care.-City of Lafayette v. Fitch (Ind. Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Syster (Ind. App.) App.) 414.

476. Where a complaint shows that plaintiff was Facts held not to show sufficient diligence to guilty of contributory negligence, notwithstand entitle a party to a new trial for newly discoring that defendant was guilty of negligence, it ered evidence.-Bertram v. State (Ind. App.) is insufficient as against a demurrer.-City of 479. Lafayette v. Fitch (Ind. App.) 414.

An applicatiou for a new trial for newly disThe adoption of additional precautions for covered_evidence is to be regarded with dissafety by å defendant after an accident cannot trust.-Bertram v. State (Ind. App.) 479. be proved as tending to show negligence in the method used at the time of the accident.

Fact that plaintiff's counsel did not know of a Stevens v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (Mass.) certain action of trial judge till after expira338.

tion of time limited for exception held no ground

for exception to court's action in denying Dew In an action for injuries against an elevated trial.-Goodrum v. Grimes (Mass.) 1053. railroad, evidence that defendant had adopted a rule relating to the sounding of a gong,

3. Proceedings to procure new trial. which its servants violated, and which was one Motion for new trial held not defective, heof the causes of the accident, held admissible. cause regular judge resumed jurisdiction for the - Stevens v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (Mass.) purpose of making the record show the filing 338.

of the motion on the last day of the term, in Where the controlling facts as to the proxi. cause.-Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Cunning

the absence of the special judge who tried the mate cause of an injury are conceded or found, ham (Ind. App.) 304. it is a question of law for the court.-Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Liidtke (Ohio) 653.

To entitle a party to a new trial for newly discovered evidence, it is insufficient to aver or

seek to show diligence by general allegations; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. but the facts constituting the diligence must be

set forth particularly.-Bertram v. State (Ind. See "Bills and Notes."

App.) 479.

Complaint for newly discovered evidence,

averring that the evidence was not known to NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. one applicant, but failing to show that it was

not known to the others, joiut parties with Ground for new trial in civil actious, see "New him, held insufficient.-Bertram v. State (Ind. Trial," 8 2.

App.) 479.

Action of trial judge in charging jury after NEW PROMISE.

retirement held a ruling made during trial,

within rule 44, and new trial should have been Within statute of limitations, see "Limitation moved for within 30 days.-Goodrum v. Grimes of Actious," $ 2.

(Mass.) 1053.

NEXT OF KIN.
NEWSPAPERS.

See "Descevt and Distribution."
Liability for libel, see “Libel and Slander," $ 3.

NONRESIDENCE.
NEW TRIAL.

Affecting jurisdiction of courts in general, see

"Courts," $ 1. Necessity of exception to decision on motion for new trial for purpose of review in crim

NONSUIT. inal prosecution, see "Criminal Law," $ 6. Necessity of motion for purpose of review, see Waiver of exception to denial of motion for, "Appeal and Error," 7.

see “Trial,” $ 12

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

NOTES.

A license, obtained during the period defend-

ant was charged with maintaining a nuisance
Promissory notes, see “Bills and Notes."

by storing naphtha on premises, held, under St.
1894, p. 446, c. 399, admissible in evidence.-

Commonwealth v. Packard (Mass.) 1067.
NOTICE.

OBJECTIONS.
Of particular facts, acts, or proceedings.
See "Elections," § 1; "Mechanics' Liens," § 1. For purpose of review, see "Appeal and Er-
Acceptance of guaranty, see "Guaranty," 1. ror," $ 5.
Allotment of work in drainage proceedings, see Mode of making objectiou to pleading, see
"Drains," $ 1.

"Pleading," $ 4.
Appeal, see "Appeal and Error," $ 9.

To evidence, see "Trial,” $ 2.
Defects in sidewalks, see “Municipal Corpora- | To jury, see “Jury,” g 2.

tions," $ 12.
Increase of tax assessment, see "Taxation,"

OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT.
$ 3.
Meeting of city council, see "Municipal Corpo- Laws impairing, see “Constitutional Law," $ 4.

rations," $ 9.
Tax sale, see "Taxation," $ 5.

OBSTRUCTIONS.
To particular classes of parties.
See “Principal and Agent,” g 2.

Or highways, see “Highways," $ 4.
Bank officers, see “Banks and Banking," $ 1.

Of water course, see "Waters and Water
Guarantor, see "Guaranty,” $ 3.

Courses," § 1.
Purchaser, see “Vendor and Purchaser," $ 3.

OFFER.
One having knowledge of facts suficient to
put him on inquiry is chargeable with knowledge of reward, see "Rewards."
of the facts.- Webb v. John Hancock Mut. Life
Ins. Co. (Ind. Sup.) 1006.

OFFICERS.
Whatever puts a party on inquiry amounts in
law to notice.-Blair v. Whitaker (Ind. App.) | Injunctions affecting, see “Injunction," $ 1.
182.

Quo warranto, see "Quo Warranto.”
NOVATION. .

Particular classes of officers.

See "Clerks of Courts"; "Judges"; "Justices
Complainant held not discharged from liabil- of the Peace"; "Receivers"; "Sheriffs and
ity for the payment of his debts by reason of Constables."
contract of third person to pay them.-Ellis v.
Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. (i11.) 808.

Bank officers, see “Banks and Banking," § 1.

Corporate officers, see "Corporations," $ 2.
To establish novation, discharge of original County officers, see “Counties," $ 1.
parties from liability to each other, and sub- Election officers, see "Elections,' $ 2.
stitution of reciprocal obligations between sub- Health officers, see "Health," 8'1.
stituted parties, must be shown.-Stowell v. Municipal officers, see "Municipal

Corpora-
Gram (Mass.) 342.

tions," $ 4.
In an action by one of the parties to a con-

Town officers, see "Towns," 1.
tract against the assignee of the other, evidence $ 1. Appointment, qualification, and
examined, and held insufficient to show a nova-

tenure.
tion.-Stowell v. Gram (Mass.) 342.

Disqualification to hold office, imposed by

Burns Rev. St. 1901, § 2327, as a penalty for
NUISANCE.

bribery at primary elections, held not available

to opposing candidate until after conviction
Joinder of causes, see “Action,” g 1.

thereof.-Gray v. Seitz (Ind. Sup.) 456.
Liquor nuisance, see “Intoxicating Liquors," Agreement to give promissory note in consid-
$ 2.

eration of withdrawal of opposing candidate,

etc., held to fall within Burns' Rev. St. 1901,
§ 1. Private nuisances.

§ 2327, punishing bribery at primary elections
Hospital conducted next door to plaintiff's | by disqualification to hold office.-Gray v.
house held a private nuisance.-Deaconess Home Seitz (Ind. Sup.) 456.
& Hospital v. Bontjes (I11.) 748.

Const. art. 2, § 6, relative to disqualification
Equity will restrain a nuisance, disturbing the to hold office, consequent upon bribery to se-
peace and injuriously affecting health, without cure election, held not to apply to bribery at
waiting for determination of question of nui- primary elections,-Gray v. Seitz (Iud. Sup.)
sance in an action at law.--Deaconess Home & 450.
Hospital v. Bontjes (III.) 748.

Where the appointment of an officer is a nul-
That the trustees of a hospital did not know lity, because he is by statute ineligible, a legal
the offensive manner in which it was conducted appointment may be made without first oust-
was no answer to suit to enjoin its maintenance. ing such first appointee by quo warranto.-
Deaconess Home & Hospital v. Bontjes (III.) State v. Craig (Ohio) 228.

A board of health, having appointed a new
Decree in injunction suit held not inconsistent health officer, thereby indicated its pleasure
with prayer. -Deaconess Home & Hospital v. that the former health officer should no longer
Bontjes (ill.) 748.

serve, within Rev. St. 1890, $ 2115.-State v.
§ 2. Public nuisances.

Craig (Ohio) 228.
Erection of fence 10 or 12 feet high, shutting
off the view of the public, and the view, light,

OILS.
and air of a neighbor, held not a public nui-

See "Mines and Minerals," 8 1.
sance, within the definition in Burns' Rev. St.
1901,' $ 290, nor an infraction of section 2153
(Horner's Rev. St. 1901, $ 2065), imposing a

OPENING
penalty for maintaining' å nuisance.-Russell
v. State (Ind. App.) 182.

Judgment, see "Judgment," $ 4.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

748.

[ocr errors][merged small]

OPINION EVIDENCE.

ing from a final decree made on issues sutse-

quently joined between the parties, defendant
In civil actions, see "Evidence," g 9.

waived_its right to complain of such amead-
ment.-Lake Shore & M. S. Ry, Co. y. City of

Elyria (Ohio) 738.
OPINIONS.
Of courts, see "Courts," $ 2.

PARTITION.
OPTICIANS.

Parol or extrinsic evidence to explain descrip-

tion in indeuture of partition, see "Evidence, **
See “Physicians and Surgeons."

$ 8.

§ 1. Actions for partition.
OPTIONS.

In action by two remaindermen for partition
To buy land, see “Vendor and Purchaser,", & 1. railroad' right of way, the railroad claiming 10-

of land, a portion of which was occupiel by
To renew lease, see “Lavdlord and Tenant,” g 3. der deceased life tenant, decree requiring raii-

load to surrender possession to the remainder
ORDERS.

men held erroneous.-Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry.

Co. v. Vaughn (III.) 113.
Review of appealable orders, see “Appeal and

In action by remainderman for partition of
Error."

land occupied in part by railroad track, the rail-
ORDINANCES.

road claiming under a deceased life tenant,
i held, that railroad should be entitled to reason-

able time to effectuate condemnation.-Chicago,
Documentary evidence, see “Evidence," $ 7.

P. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Vaughn (111.) 113.
Judicial notice of, see “Evidence," 8 1.
Municipal ordinances, see "Municipal Corpora Decree in partitiou suit holding eight-cinths
tions," $S 1, 3, 6, 7, 13.

of property subject to homestead held prejudi.
Regulation of railroads, see "Railroads," $ 2. cial to complainant holding title to remaining
Regulation of water supply, see "Waters and ninth-Kloss v. Wylezalek (111.) 863.
Water Courses," $ 3.

It is only when land held in common cannot

be partitioned that a sale may be ordered.-
ORPHAN ASYLUM,

Kloss v. Wylezalek (III.) 863.
See "Asylums."

Where plaintiff in a suit for partition sougbt
to set aside a tax deed as a cloud on title, the

burden of proof was on her to establish the
PARENT AND CHILD.

invalidity of the deed.—Glos v. Carlin (III.)

928.
See “Bastards”; “Guardian and Ward"; "In-

In a suit for partition and to remove a tas
fants."

deed as a cloud on title, a finding held to amount
Effect of naturalization of father, see "Aliens,” to a finding that the deed constituted a cloud
§ 1.

ou title.-Glos v. Carlin (III.) 928.
PAROL EVIDENCE.

Under Partition Act, § 39 (3 Starr & C. An.

St. 1896 (2d Ed.] p. 2925), the court in a bili
In civil actions, see “Evidence,” $ 8.

for partition heid entitled to examine separate
To lay foundation for collateral attack on judg. titles arising from sources independent of those
ment, see "Judgment," $ 6.

under which the tenants in common claimed.

for the purpose of removing such claims as
PARTIES.

clouds on the title sought to be partitioned.-

Glos v. Carlin (III.) 928.
Defects ground for abatement, see "Abatement Complainant in partition suit must show owo-
and Revival," $ 1.

ership of an undivided interest in the property
Iuterpleading, see “Interpleader.”

sought to be partitioned.--Owen v. Village of
Persons concluded by judgment, see "Judg. Brookport (111.) 952.
ment," $ 7.

Under Rev. Laws, c. 184, 88 8, 9, 19, held
In particular actions or proceeding8. that, in partition, it was proper to deny motion
See “Equity," $ 2; “Partitiou," § 1.

for a ruling that respondents had no interest

in the premises, within section 19.-In re Butt-
For causing death, see "Death," & 1.
Foreclosure, see "Mortgages," § 5.

rick (Mass.) 1044.
On appeal or writ of error, see “Appeal and

Recital in auditor's report held not to raise
Error,” $$ 3, 8, 17.

presumption that he made all the evidence a
To recover money for taxes illegally diverted, part of his report.-In re Buttrick (Mass.) 101.
see "Taxation," § 8.

In proceedings in partition, under Rev. Laws.
To particular classes of convcyances, contracts, c. 18), $$ 8, 9, held an impropriety for the audi-
or transactions.

tor to make all the evidence a part of his re
See "Contracts," $ 2.

port.-In re Buttrick (Mass.) 1014.
8 1. New parties and change of parties.

Title held not unmarketable for failure to
Where a solicitor of a city brought mandamus make person having no interest therein defend-
in his own name as such and as a taxpayer, ant.-Dresser v. Travis (N. Y.) 734; In re Koss,
but in behalf of the city, held, that the court, Id.
under Rev. St. $ 5114, could allow an amend Will construed, and held, that granddaughter
ment by striking the name of the solicitor and of testatrix had no interest in the estate, and
taxpayer, and adding in lieu thereof the name of

was not a necessary party in partition thereof.
the city as plaintiff.-Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. -Dresser v. Travis (N. Y.) 734; In re Koss,
Co. v. City of Elyria (Ohio) 738.

Id.
§ 2. Defects, objections, and amend. Lease of land sold under partition held not
ment.

such a cloud on the title as to render it unmar-
Where the court allowed an amendment chan- ketable.-Dresser v. Travis (N. Y.) 736; In re
ging the name of the party plaintiff, by appeal. Coogan, Id.

er

PARTNERSHIP.

PAVEMENT.
§ 1. Dissolution, settlement, and ao- In cities, see "Municipal Corporations," 88 6, 7.

connting.
In a suit for dissolution of a partnership, the
master to whom the case was referred held to

PAYMENT.
bare properly stated the account between the see "Compromise and Settlement”; “Teuder.”
parties.-Ernst v. Schmitz (Ill.) 923.

By garnishee, see "Garnishment," $ 2.

Of consideration for conveyance to another as
PARTY WALLS.

creating trust, see “Trusts," $ 2.
Suit to restrain violation of party wall agree of particular classes of obligations or liabilities.
ment held not barred by laches.-Springer v. See "Judgment,” $ 8.
Darlington (111.) 946.

Claims against estate of decedent, see "Execu-
A party to a party wall agreement is entitled tors and Administrators," 4.
to injunction to restrain its violation by the oth Price of land sold, see “Vendor and Purchaser,"

party's replacing the original wall by one $ 2.
in which numerous openings occur.-Springer v.
Darlington (III.) 946.

PENALTIES.
An injunction restraining a party to a party
wall agreement from maintaining openings in In oil and gas leases, see "Mines and Minerals,"
the wall as reconstructed by him, and from in $ 1.
terfering with complainant in closing them up, Obstruction of highway, see “Highways," § 4.
is a proper remedy.-Springer v. Darlington
(111.) 946.

$ 1. Actions and other proceedings.
A purchaser at foreclosure sale is not estop- p. 273, relating to practice of medicine, where

In action for penalty for violating Laws 1899,
ped to sue an adjoining owner for violation of Appellate Court reverses judgment without re-
à party wall agreement, by the fact that as mand, it should incorporate statement of facts
inortgagee, and while the adjoining owner also in judgment.-People v. Smith (III.) 810.
held the equity in the mortgaged premises, he
knew of the violation.-Springer v. Darlington
(111.) 946.

PENITENTIARIES.
Party reconstructing party wall with openings
therein held not entitled to insist on reimburse - Subject and title of statute relating to, see
ment for half the expense of reconstruction be-

“Statutes," $ 3.
fore closing openings.-Springer v. Darlington
(III.) 946.

PERPETUITIES.
Party to party wall agreement held not enti-
tled to resist suit to compel solid wall by plead Testamentary trust_held void as suspending
ing that other party did not intend to use his power of alienation.-Brown v. Quintard (N. Y.)
property for building purposes.-Springer v. 225.
Darlington (III.) 946.

A direction to hold certain property in trust
Decree in an injunction suit to restraiu viola- for 26 years renders the trust void, as being
tion of a party wall agreement held not objec- measured by years, and not by lives. -Brown v.
tionable as wrongly depriving the defendant of Quintard (N. Y.) 225.
the possession of his property.-Springer v. Dar-

Will construed, and codicil decreeing legacy
liugton (III.) 946.

to one of testator's daughters in the event of
To replace a party wall hy a wall in which her marriage held void as a suspension of the
numerous openings occur is a violation of the power of alienation.-Herzog v. Title Guarantee
party wall agreement.--Springer v. Darlington & Trust Co. (N. Y.) 283.
(III.) 946.

Where it is apparent from a will and a codicil
PASSENGERS.

that testator intended that the provision for

his daughter under the codicil should be in-
See "Carriers,” | 3.

alienable during her life, the rule that annui-
ties do not suspend the power of alienation is

inapplicable. Herzog v. Title Guarantee &
PATENTS.

Trust Co. (N. Y.) 283.
Expert testimony as to sufficiency of patent
license, see "Evidence," $ 9.

PERSONAL INJURIES.
Harmless error in admission of evidence in ac-

tion to recover balance due on sale of patent- See “Negligence."
ed articles, see “Appeal and Error," $ 21. Bar of action by limitations, see “Limitation of
Violatiou of injunction restraining manufacture Actions,” $ 1.

and use of patented articles, see “Injunc- Caused by defective construction of railroad,
tion," $ 4.

see "Railroads," $ 1.
Warranty against infringement in contract for Caused by dog, see "Animals."
sale of patented article, see “Contracts," $ 2. Caused by operation of street railroad, see

"Street Railroads," $ 2.
PAUPERS.

Conclusion in pleading in action for, see "Plead-

ing," $ 1.
§ 1. Settlement and removal.

Damages resulting from proximate or remote
Married woman, abandoned by husband, may Evidence and

cause, see "Damages," $ 1.
maintain residence apart from him to acquire

assessment of damages, see
a settlement.--Bradford v. City of Worcester Examination of witnesses in action for, see

"Damages," $ 2.
(Mass.) 310.

"Witnesses," $ 2.
Under Pub. St. 1882, c. 83, § 1, cls. 1, 6, 7, Expert testimony as to probable consequences,
a married woman, whose second husband has see "Evidence,” $ 9.
no settlement, may acquire one by five years' Harmless error in exclusion of evidence in ac-
residence in a place, though she has acquired tion for, see “Appeal and Error," $ 21.
another one through her first husband.-Brad- Inconsistent statements by witness in action
iord v. City of Worcester (Mass.) 310.

for, see "Witnesses," $ 3.

2

Intructions in actions for, see "Trial," $ 5.

In particular actions or proceedings.
Opinion evidence, see "Evidence," $ 9.
Special findings in action for, see "Trial.” $ 11. See Equity,”,8 3;. “Injunction," $ 2: Lite

and Slander,” 3; "Mandamus," i 3; “Xes
To employé, see “Master and Servant," $$ 2–12.

ligence," $ 2; "Quo Warranto," '\ 1; "Torts";
To licensee, see “Railroads," $ 3.

""I'rover and Conversion,” g 1.
To passenger, see “Carriers," 8 3.
To person on or near railroad tracks, see “Rail- Election contest, see “Electious," $ 5.
roads," § 6.

For breach of contract, see “Contracts," $ 4.
To persons on railroad trains, see “Railroads," Foreclosure, see "Building and Loan' Associa-

tions”; “Mortgages,” s 5.
To traveler ou highway, see “Highways," 4; For injuries to live stock, see “Carriers," : 2.

For injuries from gas, see "Gas."
"Municipal Corporations,” 8 12.
To traveler on highway crossing railroad, see

For personal injuries, see "Master and Sers-
"Railroads," 8 5.

ant," 8 9; “Street Railroads," $ 2.
For rent, see “Landlord and Tenant," $ 4.

For reward, see "Rewards."
PETITION.

For wrongful death of employé, see "Master

and Servant," $ 9.
In pleading, see "Pleading."

Indictment or criminal information or com-

plaint, see "Indictment and Information."
PHOTOGRAPHS.

On insurance policy, see "Insurance," $ 9.

On note, see "Bills and Notes," $ 4.
As evidence in action for wrongful death, see

Pleas in criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal
Death," § 1.

Law," g 3.
As evidence in criminal prosecution, see “Crim- To enforce trust, see Trusts," $ 7.

Probate proceedings, see "Wills," $ 4.
inal Law," § 4.
Of criminals as public records, see "Records."

To establish mechanic's lien, see "Mechanics'

Liens,” g 2.

To restrain cutting of timber, see “Injunction,"
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.

$ 2.

To review judgment, see "Judgment,” $ 3.
Compensation for services of physician as ele-

To vacate judgment, see "Judgment," $ 5.
ment of damages, see "Damages," $ 2.

1. Form and allegations in general.
Penalty for practicing medicine without license, Where a petition sought relief against a judga
see “Penalties," $ 1.

ment on a contract on the ground of frund, it

will be inferred against the pleader that he
Traveling opticiau held not to violate Laws purposely omitted the defense of fraud in the
1899, p. 275, 88 7, 8, relating to practice of action on the contract.-Cannon v. Castleman
medicine.-People v. Smith (II.) 810.

(Ind. Sup.) 455.

Allegations in complaint by servant against
PLATS.

his master for damages for personal injuries

held to be mere conclusion of the pleader.-
As evidence of dedication, see "Dedication,” s 1. Indiana polis & G. Rapid Transit Co. v. Fore-

man (Ind. Sup.) 669.
PLEA.

In action by employé for personal injuries,

under Acts 1899, p. 234, c. 112, $ 9 (Burns'
In criminal prosecutions, see “Criminal Law,” | 8 5169k), making it the duty of manufacturing

Rev. St. 1901, 8 1087i; Horner's Rev. St. 191.
$ 3.

establishments to properly guard machines, com-
PLEADING.

plaint held not to plead a conclusion.-Blanch-
ard-Hamilton Furniture Co. v. Colvin (Ind.

App.) 1032.
Applicability of instructions to pleadings, see
"Trial," 8 7.

§ 2. Declaration, complaint, petition, or
Assignment of errors as to rulings on pleadings,

statement.
see "Appeal and Error," 8 13.

A complaint must contain a statement of all
Estoppel by, see "Estoppel," $ 1.

the facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove in
Harmless error as to rulings on pleadings, see the first instance on an answer of general de.
"Appeal and Error," 8 21.

nial.-Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Holland (Ind.
Judgment on default in pleading, see "Judg. Sup.) 138.
ment," $ 1.

That a complaint, otherwise good, sets out
Objections for purpose of review, see "Appeal the defense, does not make the pleading bad,

and Error," $ 5.
Pleas in abatement, see "Abatement and Re- Lake Erie & W. R, Co. . Holland (Ind. Sup.)

if it exhibits sufficient matter in avoidance.-
vival," $ 1.

138.
Pleas in quo warranto proceedings, see "Quo
Warranto," $ 1.

$ 3. Ples or answer, cross complaint.
Review of objections dependent on presentation

and affidavit of defense.
of grounds of review in record, see "Appeal The fact that a paragraph of the answer pur
and Error," 8 12.

ports to be only a partial answer does not ren-
Weight and sufficiency of pleadings of other der it insufficient as to such part, if it alleges
party as evidence, see "Evidence," $ 11. facts sufficient to constitute a defense.-Board

of Com’rs of Clinton County 1. Davis (Ind.
Allegations as to particular facts, acts, or Sup.) 680.

transactions.
See "Estoppel," $ 3; "Judgment," $ 9.

§ 4. Demurrer or exception.
Delivery of deed, see “Deeds," § 4.

In proceedings to compel the insurance super-
Statute of frauds, see "Frands, Statute of," § 4. intendent to issue a certificate to an insurance

company, the question whether the state has
In actions by or against particular classes of waived the right to declare a forfeiture of the
parties.

company held not to arise in view of the answer
See "Carriers," 2; "Executors and Adminis- demurred to by the petitioner.-Yates v. People

trators," $ 6; "Master and Servant," § 9; (Ill.) 775.
“Street Railroads," $ 2.

It is sufficient to decide a case on the plead-
Telephone company, see "Telegraphs and Tele- ings after the court has sustained a demurrer
phones," $ 1.

Ito the answer, and it is not necessary to allow

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »