2. BANK. National. See TAX, 2. BANKRUPTCY. BASTARDY. See ESCAPE, I, 2. - 1. Compromise.—Admission of Record. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. See CRIMINAL LAW, 4; PRACTICE, 2, See APPEAL Bond; OFFICIAL BOND; PLEVIN. BURDEN OF PROOF. See DECEDENTS' ESTATES, 4; RAIL- C CARRIER. 1. Baggage.-Porter.-The price paid one of the crew or paid by the carrier, but a porter, who receives his COLLATERAL PROCEEDING. compensation from the passenger. See JUDGMENT; OFFICIAL BOND, 3; to Perkins et al. v. Wright............27 2. Parties.-Minor.-A minor may, by his next friend, maintain an action against a carrier for the value of clothing or other property given to him by his parents or cthers, and lost by the defendant.............. ...Ibid. 3. Negligence.- Liability.-A common carrier cannot, by contract, relieve himself from liability for the loss of goods delivered him for transportation, which has been occasioned by his own negligence, or that of his agents or servants, or where such negligence has, in any degree, contributed to such loss. A common carrier can no more stipulate for a slight degree of negligence than he can for gross negligence. The Mich. South. & North. Ind. R. R. Co. v. Heaton.........448 CASES OVERRULED, APPROVED, AND DOUBTED. 1. Manufacturing Companies.-The case of Gaff v. Theis, 33 Ind. 307, approved. Gaff et al. v. Gardiner ..229 et al... 2. Pleading.- Exhibits.-Judgment. Reasor v. Raney, 14 Ind. 441, and Norris v. Amos, 15 Ind. 365, and cases following them, overruled. Lytle v. Lytle et al................281 3. Exceptions.- Instructions.- Cross v. Pearson, 17 Ind. 612, overruled. The Jeff, etc., R. R. Co. v. Cox..325 4. Bill of Exceptions.-Albaugh v. James, 29 Ind. 398, doubted. Marion T'p Un. Draining Co. et al. v. Norris et al............ .424 CITY. See DEDICATION, 1, 2; SCHOOLS, 2. A Railroad Crossing. Mandate. mandate will lie to require a railroad company having its track upon, along, or across the streets and alleys of a city, to so build and erect the same, and level and grade the said streets and alleys, their full width, as to render the use of the streets and alleys and the crossing of the track convenient for the public. The I. & C. R. R. Co. v. The State, ex rel. City of Lawrenceburg...... .486 VOL. XXXVII.-36 PLEADING, 2. COMMON CARRIER. See CARRIER. See CONTRACT, 12, 14; PROMISSORY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See AGRICULTURAL College, I to 5; FEES AND SALARIES, 1, 2, 4; SINKING FUND, 1, 2, 4. CONTRACT. See CARRIER, 3; DRUNKENNESS, 1,2; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; STATUTE OF FRAUDS; SUNDAY. I. 2. Fraudulent Representations.-A. sued F. & H. upon two promissory notes. F. & H. answered, first, that the consideration of the notes was the purchase of a certain mill, with engine, boiler, and machinery from V., who was the payee of the notes and had transferred them to the plaintiff; that V. fraudulently and falsely represented that the boiler, engine, and machinery were in good condition, sound, and fit for the running of the mill, and defendants, relying on said representations, purchased; that V. knew the representations were false; that, in fact, said boiler and machinery were worthless, but they could not discover this fact by ordinary diligence; and they were required to expend large sums in repairs, and the mill was kept idle in undergoing repairs on account of defects. Held, that this answer was good on demurrer. Frenzel et al. v. Miller....I Same. Warranty.A second paragraph of answer contained the same allegations as the first, with an averment of a warranty. Held, that this was a sufficient an.......... Ibid. swer............. 3. Promissory Note.—Assignment.— Party in Interest.-Another paragraph of answer alleged that the plaintiff was not the real party in in terest, the assignment being made to Held, that this answer was bad..... Ibid. Held, that this answer was not good on 5. Contract with Co-defendant.-Set- swer........... 6. Evidence. Damages. — On the Held, that this was error, as the evi- dence offered was proper, on cross 9. Instruction.- Notice of Assign- ment. The court instructed the jury not be allowed unless it accrued be- II. 10. Same. False Representation.— 12. Held, that he could not defend against the payment of the claims included in the order accepted by him, on the ground that the person who gave the order was, at the time when A. accepted the same, indebted to A. for more than the amount at which he had bid in the land, and that it was understood by the person for whose benefit he accepted the order that this indebtedness was to be first paid, and that it was not yet discharged. Miller, Ex'r, v. Goldthwait, Administrator..............217 14. Executory Promise. Consideration.-Advancement.-The promise of a father to give up to his son certain notes executed by the latter to the former is a promise which natural love and affection is not a sufficient consideration to support. Nor can it be supported as an advancement of the sum for which the notes were taken from the son. Denman v. McMahin, Adm'r......241 15. Same.- When a father loans money to his son and takes his note for the same, his oral declaration that he will not collect the same, but let the son have it at his death, does not change the transaction into an advancement which the father cannot recall......... ...........Ibid. 16. Joint.—Several.—Where a mortgage executed by one of the members of a partnership in his own name, but for the firm, and upon property held in his own name, but in trust for the firm, contained this agreement: "He assuming the payment of said notes, and they being for the purchase-money for the above described real estate; and the mortgagor expressly agrees to pay the sum of money above described," the notes referred to having been given by another person, and the partnership having purchased an interest in the real estate, and thus assumed their payment; Held, that the contract was the joint contract only of all the partners, and not the several contract of each. Crosby et al. v. Feroloman........ 264 17. Pleading. Joint Liability.— Former Recovery.-Where suit had been brought upon the notes and mortgage against the maker of the notes and the member of the firm in whose individual name the mortgage was executed, and judgment only of foreclosure taken against the member of the firm and a personal judgment against the maker of the notes; Held, that, as judgment on the agreement to pay the notes might have been taken against the partner in that action, the proceedings and judgment taken were a bar to any further suit against him on the contract, and therefore a bar to any suit against his partners, who were only liable jointly with him............Ibid. 18. Construction.-A contract that if certain improvements are sold for five thousand dollars, B. is to have four hundred dollars, or in proportion if for a less sum, and if the works and machinery constituting the improvements are started again and are successful, A. is to have the same amount, but if unsuccessful, nothing, will entitle A. to a proportion, if the improvements are sold after an unsuccessful attempt to run them. MeKernan v. Collins............. ...376 I. CONVEYANCE. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 5 to 9. Construction.-A conveyance of a lot to A., for the use of the Catholic congregation of the city of Aurora, called "St. Mary's," to have and to hold said premises, etc., for the use of said congregation or their assigns forever, conveys an indefeasible title in fee simple. Schipper v. St. Palais et al.......... ............505 2. Estoppel.-A church building was erected upon a lot thus conveyed, and after the use of the building for years for worship, the building was removed, and the use of the lot for church purposes was abandoned, and while a suit by the grantor was pending to have the deed of conveyance corrected on the ground of mistake in drafting, so as to limit its exclusive use to church purposes, and demanding a forfeiture of the lot to the grantor on account of such abandonment, the grantor took a contract to grade the street in front of said lot, under an ordinance of the city, and made an affidavit to secure the issuing of a precept for the collection of an assessment against the owner of the lot, and in said affidavit alleged that A. was the owner thereof; whereupon A. paid said assessment. Held, that the grantor was not estopped by such affidavit from prosecuting See VENDOR AND PURCHASER, I, 2. CRIMINAL LAW. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 4; NEW 1. Murder-Possession of Weapon Held, that evidence of the posses- 333 3. Murder.- Bail.-Under an in- Same.-Statute Construed.-The |