Cases that might impact Hendricks County, IN families

Pension Fund of Disciples of Christ v. Gulley, 226 Ind. 415, 81
N.E.2d 676 (1948)

The admitted facts in this case disclose that on or about September
17, 1938, one Bernice E. Shirley, who was then the owner of the
involved real estate, conveyed the same by warranty deed to Charles
F. Tucker and Helen Claire Tucker, who were then husband and wife,
and who, by virtue of said conveyance, became owners of the property
as tenants by the entirety
Pension Fund of Disciples of Christ v. Gulley, 81 N.E.2d 676

At 417, 676.

During the course of the present litigation, the death of Bernice E.
Shirley was suggested to the trial court and appellees, Otis E.
Gulley, as executor of her will, and Otis E. Gulley as trustee of her
will, were substituted and made parties defendants.

At 418, 676

On March 6, 1941, Helen Claire Tucker, filed suit for divorce against
Charles F. Tucker, which resulted in a decree in her favor on January
11, 1942.

At 418, 676


Clay v. Hamilton, 116 Ind.App. 214, 63 N.E.2d 207 (Ind.App. 1945)

This is an appeal from a final judgment rendered in proceedings
supplemental to execution. The action was instituted by appellee (the
former wife of one Earl Higgins) by filing a complaint wherein she
seeks to reach certain income from assets held by the appellant,
Charles Clay, Trustee in trust for the benefit of Earl Higgins, and
have the same applied in satisfaction of an alimony judgment which
appellee recovered against the said Earl Higgins in 1923, at the time
she was granted a divorce. The facts giving rise to the litigation
are as follows: William T. Higgins died testate in Hendricks County,
Indiana, in 1920. Item 5 of his last will and testament reads as
follows:

At 217, 208

At the time of the death of the testator in 1920, his son, Earl
Higgins, was married to appellee and they were living on the farm. In
January, 1923, appellee was granted a divorce from the said Earl
Higgins by the Hendricks Circuit Court

At 219, 209. Apparently, William T. Higgins' sons were Earl Glendon
Higgins and Oscar Higgins.


Piersol v. Hays, 113 Ind.App. 214, 47 N.E.2d 838 at 839 (Ind.App.
1943): "The appellants herein are the heirs at law and next of kin of
one Oliver M. Piersol, late a resident of Hendricks County, who died
testate on the 27th day of July, 1940, and the appellee is the duly
qualified and acting executor of the last will and testament of said
decedent." Raymond L. Pearcy and Chloea A. Pearcy were husband &
wife. At 842: "'This bequest is made in memory of my beloved wife,
Louise M. Piersol, to which Cradle Roll and Beginners Class she was
so devoted ever since its organization. . . .'"  The opinion does not
actually list the appellants.  The probate records might contain
further details.


In re Robinson's Estate, 19 Cal.2d 534, 121 P.2d 734 (1942):

On June 1, 1937, Glen M. Robinson, a grandson of the decedent,
William Robinson, filed in the superior court in Los Angeles County,
a verified petition for letters of administration of the estate of
his grandfather. The petition recited that the decedent died on or
about the 15th day of December, 1935, in the county of Tippecanoe,
State of Indiana; that he was a resident of that state; that he left
estate in the county of Los Angeles, State of California, consisting
of United States Government bonds of an unknown value believed to be
in the possession of Minnie Lee Robinson, a daughter of the decedent
and a resident of Los Angeles County; that the heirs of the decedent
were D. E. Robinson, a son, aged 57, living in the city of Los
Angeles, Minnie Lee Robinson, a daughter, aged 63, living in El
Monte, Los Angeles County, and Edward Robinson, aged 65, a son,
living in Lafayette, Indiana; and that the decedent left no will. * *
* On January 4, 1939, the administrator brought an action in the
superior court in Los Angeles County against Minnie Lee Robinson and
her daughter, Pauline Mann, and the latter's husband, Carl L. Mann,
to recover possession of United States Government bonds * * *

On January 31, 1940, Minnie Lee Hill and the Manns again moved the
court for an order setting aside the probate proceedings and vacating
the order appointing Glen M. Robinson as administrator. The motion
was made on the same grounds as the former motion, and on the
additional ground that at the time of the appointment of Glen M.
Robinson as administrator there was pending in Hendricks County,
Indiana, a proceeding to administer the estate of the decedent
[William Robinson] which had never been terminated, all of which had
not been revealed to the court by said Glen M. Robinson at the time
of his application for letters of administration. It was shown that
special letters of administration were issue to one Edgar M.
Blessing, an attorney, in Indiana, on the petition of Clay D.
Robinson, a grandson of the decedent; that the special administrator
sought to examine Minnie Lee Hill and Pauline Mann in a proceeding to
discover assets in the course of the administration of the estate;
that in said proceeding Minnie Lee Hill and Pauline Mann denied any
knowledge of estate property; that subsequently they were accused by
the State of Indiana of falsely testifying in said proceeding, but
for lack of sufficient evidence the criminal proceeding was
dismissed.



Fowler v. Norways Sanitorium, 112 Ind.App. 347, 42 N.E.2d 415 at 417
(Ind.App. 1942): "That Peter B. Fowler died intestate at
Indianapolis, Indiana, on August 8, 1939, and left him surviving his
widow, Elma F. Fowler, and his four minor children." Also refences
Marvin Beecham, and his wife, the plaintiff Esta Beecham.


Norrell v. Norrell, 220 Ind. 398 at 400-401, 44 N.E.2d 97 at 98
(1942): "[Lucille Daniel Norrell] testified that in August, 1937, she
and the decedent, Dr. James R. Norrell, agreed that they would be
husband and wife and that from that time, until his death in July,
1939, they lived together as husband and wife on the premises and in
the room where she had been living prior to their agreement; that he
introduced her to his friends and acquaintances as his wife, and held
her out to be his wife; that for the last seven or eight months of
his life he was in poor health and that she looked after him and took
care of him and made him comfortable; that she got in touch with his
brother, Dr. John Norrell (the administrator), after the decedent
became ill".  [Norrell v. Norrell, 40 N.E.2d 345 at 346 (Ind.App.
1942), superseded, 220 Ind. 398, 44 N.E.2d 97 (1942): "Appellant
testified that the decedent came to her room and started living with
her in August, 1937, at which time they made an unwitnessed oral
agreement that they were to be husband and wife, and that they lived
together until he died on July 20, 1939. Appellant was about 40 years
of age and the decedent between 60 and 65 years of age at the time of
the agreement."]


Dearing v. Speedway Realty Co., 111 Ind.App. 585, 40 N.E.2d 414
(Ind.App. 1942).  Robert Dearing was the son of Curtis L. Dearing. On
June 18, 1927, Robert (10 years old) was injured by a falling fire
escape ladder.


Davis v. Christie, 108 Ind.App. 110, 24 N.E.2d 273 at 274 (Ind.App.
1940): "The evidence discloses that one Jacob Lockhart, who died
testate in the early part of February, 1933, was the owner of the
said 188 acres at the time of his death; that he left surviving him
his widow, Nancy A. Lockhart, who died intestate June 19, 1935, and
one child, the decedent, Oscar B. Lockhart, through whom, by descent,
all parties claim the respective ownership of said real estate which
they assert. It is stipulated that Oscar B. Lockhart died intestate
July 4, 1935; that he was never married; that his mother, Nancy A.
Lockhart, died intestate June 9, 1935, leaving as her heir and only
heir at law the said Oscar B. Lockhart; that Oscar B. 'did not leave
surviving him a widow, father or mother, grandfather or grandmother,
child or children, or descendents of a deceased child or children,
brother or sister, or descendents of a deceased brother or sister.'"


Dinkla v. Miles, 206 Ind. 124, 188 N.E. 577 (1934). Andrew F. Miles
was Superintendent of the Indiana Reformatory.


Brown v. Kidwell, 120 Kan. 380, 244 P. 236 (1926): "Alta I. Brown and
Roscoe B. Brown, wife and husband, in 1913, resided on a farm in
Hamilton county, Kan. * * *  The father [Henry J. Kidwell] and mother
[Mary E. Kidwell] of Alta lived on a homestead near Bedford in
Livingston county, Mo. The mother held the fee, and the homestead
consisted of a house and some 27 acres of stump and timber land, more
or less. Plaintiff's mother, Mary E. Kidwell, died in 1913, and
devised a life estate in the homestead to her husband, Henry J.
Kidwell, with remainder to Alta I. Brown and her two brothers and
four sisters, Alonzo C. Kidwell, William W. Kidwell, Nora E. Feltz,
Mary M. Stirling, Florence C. Stirling, and Lizzie M. Austin. * * *
Henry J. Kidwell, the father, died in 1922 * * *  Another item of
damages prayed for was $300 on account of some false statements made
in filing an inventory in the circuit court of Hendricks county,
Ind."


Jones v. Jones, 84 Ind.App. 176, 149 N.E. 108 at 109 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1925), reh'g denied, 84 Ind.App. 176, 150 N.E. 65 (Ind.App. 1926):
"On August 4, 1917, Mary M. Jones was the owner in fee simple of the
real estate involved [in Perry Township, Marion County, IN]. On said
day, while owning said real estate in fee simple, said Mary M. Jones
died testate, leaving her surviving John M. Jones, her husband,
Lawrence H. Jones, her son, Helen M. Jones, the daughter of said
Lawrence H., and Ernest E. Jones, her grandson, who is the son of her
deceased son, and no other child, grandchild, or descendant.  * * *
Said John M. Jones made no sale, conveyance, or other disposition of
his interest in the real estate aforesaid, or any part thereof, and
died the owner thereof and intestate on March 29, 1923, leaving him
surviving his son, Lawrence H. Jones, and his grandson, Ernest E.
Jones, and no widow or other child or descendant. He continued to
dwell in said residence property until about six months before his
death, and said Lawrence H. Jones, with his wife and his daughter,
have resided in said residence property from the time of the death of
said Mary M. Jones until the present time. The above-named Ernest E.
Jones, Lawrence H. Jones, and Helen M. Jones are the persons named as
parties herein, and Berndette Jones is the wife of said Ernest E.
Jones, and Hulda Jones is the wife of said Lawrence H. Jones, and
each of the parties is more than 21 years of age."


Gowan v. Greathouse, 78 Ind.App. 98, 134 N.E. 898 at 898 (Ind.App. 2
Div. 1922): "In February, 1918, Sarah Gowan, then the wife of [Daniel
W. Gowan], filed her complaint against both [Daniel W. Gowan] and
[Archie Greathouse] for partition. * * * In November, 1919, Mrs.
Gowan, described in the deed as "unmarried," with others, executed a
deed to [Archie Greathouse] for the real estate."


Edwards v. Beard, 77 Ind.App. 478, 134 N.E. 203 at 203 (Ind.App. 2
Div. 1922): "Dr. Elisha D. Beard died May 1, 1919, his only possible
heirs being appellee Lizzie Vaughn, a half-sister, and appellee Louis
H. Beard, an illegitimate son, whom he had acknowledged as his child.
In September, 1918, Dr. Beard executed a will in which he named an
executor and directed that all his just debts be paid. In item 2 he
willed and bequeathed all his property, real and personal, to 'Mabel
Smith, known as my adopted daughter, Mary Catherine Beard.' While Dr.
Beard and Mabel Smith were attempting to cross a railroad in an
automobile they were struck by a train and killed. Miss Smith died
first. * * * Mabel Smith at the time of her death was about 19 years
old. She had lived in the home of Dr. Beard since she was about 3
years old, but was not related to him. She left as her only heir her
mother. Dr. Beard made no devise or bequest of property other than to
Mabel Smith. At the time of his death Dr. Beard had no surviving
legitimate children or descendants of legitimate children. His wife
had predeceased him; his only relative and next of kin other than
appellee Louis H. Beard being appellee Lizzie Vaughn."


Moore v. Moore, 74 Ind.App. 626, 129 N.E. 480 at 480-481 (Ind.App. 2
Div. 1921): "[Carrie Moore] brought this action against [Harry
Moore], her husband, alleging that appellant had abandoned her and
their four infant children without leaving sufficient provisions for
their support, and praying for a judgment and order for the payment
of $100 per month for the support of herself and children."


Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Edwards, 190 Ind. 57, 129 N.E.
310 at 312 (Ind. 1921): "The evidence tends to show that at about 11
o'clock on the morning of July 17, 1913, decedent met with injuries
which caused his death the following morning at 8 o'clock; that at
the time he received his injuries he was in the employment of
appellant as a member of one of its bridge gangs, and engaged in
repairing one of appellant's bridges located about six miles west of
Spencer, Ind." Anna E. E. Edwards was administratrix.  The decedent's
name is not mentioned. "Joseph C. Clark, in 1906, was made foreman of
one of appellant's bridge gangs, and continued in that position until
he was elected clerk of Owen county". At 314.


Humphrey v. Johnson, 73 Ind.App. 551, 127 N.E. 819 at 820 (Ind.App.
1920):
"* * * [I]n January, 1906, the defendants, George H. Johnson and his
wife, Anna Johnson, were aged, in need of care and assistance, and
resided on a farm owned by Mr. Johnson. The farm had been neglected,
was in a bad state of repair and cultivation, and yielded but little
income. The Johnsons desired to live on the farm the remainder of
their days, and because of their advanced age they were anxious to
have some one live on the farm with them and give them such care and
attention as they needed in their declining years. Humphrey's wife
was the daughter of the defendants. The defendants entered into an
oral contract with Humphrey, by the terms of which it was agreed that
[Arthur M. Humphrey] and his wife should live with the defendants and
improve the farm, and as compensation for their services the
defendants would execute the necessary papers to convey the farm to
Humphrey and his wife jointly.
"Pursuant to the agreement Humphrey and his wife went upon the farm,
made improvements thereon, and nursed and cared for the defendants
until December 12, 1912, at which time Humphrey's wife died. After
her death he continued to reside with the defendants on the farm and
to discharge his duties under the contract. In October, 1915, with
the consent and at the request of the defendants, he remarried, and
brought his second wife into the home, to assist in caring for the
defendants, under another oral agreement that the original contract
should be performed as if Humphrey's first wife had lived. They
continued with the defendants under the agreement until May 29, 1916,
at which time they left the farm, because defendants had repudiated
the agreement and had ordered them away."


Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Helms, 70 Ind.App. 137, 121
N.E. 279 at 280 (Ind.App. 1 Div. 1918): "[Alice Helms], as
administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Charles Helms,
instituted this action to recover damages for his alleged wrongful
death as the result of being struck by one of appellant's interurban
cars."


Simmons v. Simmons, 186 Ind. 575, 116 N.E. 49 at 50 (1917): "The
complaint shows that William Simmons is a brother of [Dana Simmons],
and that Rosa Daum is her sister, and that these appellees caused
proceedings to be brought before appellee James Barlow, who was at
the time a justice of the peace, whereby [Dana Simmons] was adjudged
to be a proper subject for treatment in a hospital for the insane,
and, as a result of which she was committed to and confined in the
Central Indiana Hospital for the Insane for a period of 20 days."


Prebster v. Henderson, 186 Ind. 21, 113 N.E. 241 (1916), reh'g
overruled, 186 Ind. 21, 114 N.E. 691 (1917). "[O]on the 18th day of
February, 1913, * * * a paper purporting to be the will of Eliza
Henderson was offered for probate in that court. * * * Eliza
Henderson left appellants Anderson Prebster and Emerson Prebster, her
brothers, and a sister, Emma Tout, as her sole heir." At 241.  "[T]he
testatrix was of sound mind and under no coercion or restraint, and
that she died in Hendricks county, Ind."  At 242.


Head v. Leak, 61 Ind.App. 253, 111 N.E. 952 at 952: (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1916): "William T. Head left surviving him four natural children and
an adopted child, who was his grandchild, the only child of a
deceased son. In the distribution of the surplus of the personal
estate of William T. Head, after the payment of debts and the
satisfaction of his widow's rights, the question arose as to whether
Lehallah Head, the adopted child, and one of the appellees, was
entitled to one-fifth or two-sixth of that remainder; that is,
whether she took only one share, or whether she took a share as an
adopted child and another share as her father's heir."


Terre Haute, I. & E. Traction Co. v. Hunter, 62 Ind.App. 399, 111
N.E. 344 at 345 (Ind.App. 1 Div. 1916): "That decedent, a boy 12
years old, took passage at Greencastle, Ind., on appellant's
interurban passenger car for stop 32, which was west of Greencastle,
paid his fare to that point, and informed the conductor of the car of
the place where he desired to alight or stop; that the fare was
accepted for that place by the conductor, but, in violation of their
contracts and request, he was carried beyond the place of his
destination to stop 34, and was put off by the conductor at a stop
which he supposed was his destination, and with which he was
unfamiliar; that in attempting to return to his destination by the
railway track, and crossing a creek over and upon appellant's railway
bridge, the only way he knew how to cross said creek, he was killed
by appellant's car which came up behind him from the west while he
was still upon said railway bridge."  The decedent was Harry Hunter,
his mother was Mary E. Hunter and father was John W. Hunter.


Herring v. Watson, 182 Ind. 374, 105 N.E. 900 at 901 (1914): "[Virgil
S. Watson] brought this action to resist the probate of the alleged
will of Amanda J. Watson, deceased". Sarah A. Herring is the only
referenced defendant.  The opinion does not provide any more family
detail, but the original probate records might . . . if they are
still available.


Guyer v. Union Trust Co. of Indianapolis, 55 Ind.App. 472, 104 N.E.
82 at 84 (Ind.App. 2 Div. 1914):
"Appellee commenced this action in the superior court of Marion
county, declaring on a series of 15 notes, alleged to have been
executed by appellant William Guyer to the Union Trust Company of
Indianapolis, and on a real estate mortgage securing said notes,
alleged to have been executed by said William Guyer, and appellant
Maggie Guyer, his wife. The venue of said cause was changed to the
Hendricks circuit court, where the trial was had. * * *
"In addition to William Guyer and Maggie Guyer, the appellants John
Guyer and Mary Guyer, his wife, Charles B. Guyer and Dessie L. Guyer,
his wife, Flora F. Zink and Samuel B. Zink, her husband, and Sallie
Katie Guyer are made defendants to the complaint; it being alleged
that said additional defendants claim some interest in or lien upon
the real estate described in said mortgage. It is alleged that said
John, Charles B., and Sallie Katie Guyer and said Flora F. Zink are
children of said William and Maggie Guyer."


Craven v. Craven, 181 Ind. 553, 103 N.E. 333 (1913), reh'g denied,
181 Ind. 553, 105 N.E. 41 (1914): Jeremiah Barker died in 1859
leaving his widow, Jane Barker (d. 1891), son Jasper Barker, and
daughter Adaline Barker. On 13 Nov 1862, Adaline married W. M.
Craven. Jasper Craven was born to Adaline and W. M. in Nov 1863.
Jasper Barker enlisted, was wounded in battle in Sep 1864, was sent
home on furlough, and died at his home December 13, 1864.  Allegedly,
Jasper Barker created a will witnessed by F. M. York and Enoch
Scotten, which left Jasper Barker's share of the property to his
nephew Jasper Craven. In F. M. York moved to Kansas, where he died
before 1914.  Jasper Craven sued his mother Adaline Barker Craven to
recover the property.


Gorham v. Gorham, 54 Ind.App. 408, 103 N.E. 16 at 16 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1913): "On the 8th day of January, 1906, Maria Davis died intestate
in Hendricks county . . . leaving the following named heirs, to wit:
William Gorham, a son, Priscilla Ann Kerr, a daughter, Thornton F.
Gorham, a son, Charles M. Gorham and Elbert E. Gorham, grandchildren,
sons of John A. Gorham, deceased, and Fred S. Gorham and Mary E.
Ayres, grandchildren, being children of Daniel S. Gorham, deceased."


Terre Haute, I. & E. Traction Co. v. Maberry, 52 Ind.App. 114, 100
N.E. 401 at 402 (Ind.App. 1 Div. 1913)
100 N.E. 401 (1913): "On June 24, 1908, at about 10:20 a. m., when a
car was approaching from the west on appellant's track, [Amos F.
Maberry]'s son Virgil, 7 1/2 years old, went from the residence
across the track to the mail box to get mail."  Virgil Maberry died
of the injuries received in the collision.


Cooper v. Cooper, 51 Ind.App. 374, 99 N.E. 782 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1912). Annetta Cooper divorced William Cooper.


Smith v. McDonald, 49 Ind.App. 464, 97 N.E. 556 at 557 (Ind.App. 1
Div. 1912): "[O]n and prior to March 29, 1898, [Phillip McDonald]
resided in Craig, Neb., and [Belle M. Smith] resided in Hendricks
county, Ind.; that on said date appellant, then Belle McDonald, and
her husband, Samuel W. McDonald, executed to appellee a certain
promissory note in the sum of $150"


Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 177 Ind. 524, 97 N.E.
164 at 167 - 168 (1912): "In 1869, one John W. Smith was the owner of
a farm in Hendricks county, consisting of a quarter section
containing 160 acres, a 40-acre tract lying east of the southeast
quarter of the 160-acre tract, and a 12-acre tract lying south of the
eastern half of the entire tract. In 1869, appellant's predecessor,
the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, condemned a right of
way for its railroad, almost east and west in direction, through the
Smith farm. This right of way was 100 feet wide through the 40-acre
tract and 110 feet wide through the 160-acre tract. At the same time,
to secure materials 'to make the roadbed,' there was condemned on
each side of the 110 feet right of way through the 160-acre tract, a
strip 120 feet wide. Over 80 acres of the farm was south of the right
of way condemned. The buildings on the farm were all north of the
railroad. White Lick creek flows through the farm, from north to
south, and east of the center thereof. * * * From the completion of
the railroad in 1870, to the time of John W. Smith's death, which
occurred in 1883 or 1884, the only means of communication, used in
transporting farm products and machinery, between this 40-acre tract,
and the tract north of the railroad, was a crossing over the
railroad, south of Smith's residence. . This crossing was entered
through gates maintained in the fences along the right of way. On the
death of John W. Smith, [Alva B. Smith], his son, inherited the farm
and has owned it ever since."  Alva's wife was Martha E. Smith.

Martin v. Caldwell, 49 Ind.App. 1, 96 N.E. 660 (Ind.App. 1 Div.
1911). James H. Groover, died testate in Hendricks county, Ind., in
October, 1900, and left surviving his wife and five children. His
wife, Nancy Groover, died intestate, February 24, 1909.


Indianapolis & W. Ry. Co. v. Hill, 172 Ind. 402, 86 N.E. 414 (1908).
Railroad easement condemnation against "Charles B. Hill and Emma
Alice Hill, his wife". At 415.


Indianapolis & M. Rapid Transit Co. v. Reeder, 42 Ind.App. 520, 85
N.E. 1042 at 1042 (Ind.App. 2 Div. 1908): "[John C. Reeder] alleges
in a single paragraph of complaint that his wife [Nellie Reeder] was
a passenger on one of [Indianapolis & Martinsville Rapid Transit
Company]'s cars, and that a collision occurred between it and another
car, caused by appellant's negligence; that his wife thereby suffered
injuries, resulting in her death a year later."


Vannice v. Dungan, 41 Ind.App. 27, 83 N.E. 250 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1908). Action by James O. Vannice (as mortgagee and lien holder)
against James A. Dungan, administrator of the Washington Gregg
estate, and Gregg's heirs.  No genealogical information in the
opinion, but might be in the court records.


Hardin v. Hardin, 168 Ind. 352, 81 N.E. 60 (1907). On 15 May 1903, in
McLean County, KY, Lora Hardin obtained a divorce from Mark L.
Hardin.  Lora Hardin and Samuel H. Mills obtained partial custody of
Lora's child, Mills Hardin.  William H. Hardin, grandfather of Mills
Hardin, sought a writ of habeas corpus for return of Mills Hardin.


Malott v. Central Trust Co. of Greencastle, 168 Ind. 428, 79 N.E.
369, 11 Am.Ann.Cas. 879 (1906). Action by the estate of Fred H.
Hermsen against the Terre Haute & Indianapolis RR Co. Decedent at the
time of his death was 32 years of age and left a widow and children.
"[D]ecedent was a postal clerk in the service of the United States in
charge of such mail on appellant's train and was being carried as a
postal clerk on appellant's train at the time he received the injury
which caused his death, the same being caused by a 'head-end
collision of two of appellant's trains on appellant's railroad.'"


Hume v. McHaffie, 79 N.E. 377 (Ind.App. 2 Div. 1906), on rehearing,
reversed, 40 Ind.App. 703, 81 N.E. 117 (Ind.App. 2 Div. 1907). First
opinion interpreted Samuel Cosner's will as leaving a life estate to
his wife Nancy L. Cosner and the remainder to his three children
Emmey Mchaffie, Netta Snoddy, and Otis Samuel Cosner.  Second opinion
held the will to leave the property to the wife as a fee simple
estate.


Barnett v. Thomas, 36 Ind.App. 441, 75 N.E. 868, 114 Am.St.Rep. 385
(Ind.App. 2 Div. 1905). Erasmus D. Thomas died and left property.
Edward D. Thomas was a son of Erasmus.  Levi A. Barnett acquired
Edward's interest by judicial sale. Mary E. Thomas and others brought
suit to partition the property but not account to Barnett for rents
and profits received. The trial court found that the real estate was
not susceptible of division in kind, and should be sold, and the
proceeds divided among the parties. Appellate court held Barnett was
entitled to rents and profits according to his share.


Consolidated Traction Co. v. Jordan, 36 Ind.App. 156, 75 N.E. 301
(Ind.App. 2 Div. 1905). Proceedings by the Consolidated Traction
Company against John A. Jordan to appropriate land for a right of
way.


Townsend v. Meneley, 37 Ind.App. 127, 74 N.E. 274 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1905), reh'g denied, 37 Ind.App. 127, 76 N.E. 321 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1905). Dora Meneley was the daughter of Marion Townsend and Keziah
Kenworthy. Marion Townsend never married and died with lawful issue
or descendants.  Marion Townsend's brothers were Charles and William
Townsend.  In 1901, Marion Townsend was an inmate of a private
sanatorium, was of unsound mind, and died in that condition.


Towles v. McCurdy, 163 Ind. 12, 71 N.E. 129 (1904). Contest over will
of Elijah M. Tinder. Elijah's son, Edward E. Tinder, was the sole
legatee and devisee named in that instrument. Other parties, and
presumably children of Elijah Tinder are Mary E. McCurdy, Julia A.
Towles, William H. Tinder.  Apparently the will was presented to the
trial court on February 24, 1902.


Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Lindsay, 33 Ind.App. 404, 70
N.E. 283 (Ind.App. 2 Div. 1904). On 21 Jan 1898, Howard Lindsay was
employed at the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway
Company yards east of Indianapolis, IN. The coupling between two cars
was broken.  Decedent tried to separate the cars while they were
moving and was crushed to death.


Ellis v. Baird, 31 Ind.App. 295, 67 N.E. 960 (Ind.App. 2 Div. 1903).
"The evidence shows that Ella Baird, appellee, is the wife of W. H.
H. Baird, a son of [James A. Baird]; that [James A. Baird], his two
sons, Albert and Thomas, the claimant and her husband, and their
three children, occupied the house of the decedent-- lived and ate
together as one household and one family-- from the 1st of September,
1899, to the 18th day of October, 1900, on which date [James A.
Baird] died."


Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 29 Ind.App. 556, 64 N.E. 900
(Ind.App. 2 Div. 1902). Action by John T. Hollingsworth, as
administrator, etc., against Asbury Hollingsworth. "The appellee,
John T. Hollingsworth, administrator of the estate of Murza N.
Hollingsworth, deceased, filed in the Hendricks circuit court his
petition, asking that the interest of Mary Ann Hollingsworth, widow
of said decedent, in the real estate left by her husband, be set off
to her so that he could subject to sale a part of the remainder of
said land to make assets with which to pay debts of said decedent."


Stewart v. Stewart, 28 Ind.App. 378, 62 N.E. 1023 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1902). Suit by Ida M. Stewart against Lewis C. Stewart for divorce.


Breedlove v. Breedlove, 27 Ind.App. 560, 61 N.E. 797 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1901). Action by Mayme Breedlove against David C. Breedlove for
divorce. "The complaint avers that the parties were married December
5, 1895, and lived together until February 6, 1899; that they have
one child, then 18 months old. * * * Motions were made to modify the
judgment both as to the custody of the infant daughter, Dorothy, and
as to the amount of alimony and its manner of payment. Appellant was
one of two children. He was 29 years of age at the time of the trial,
with an expectancy of 35 years. He was the owner of an estate for his
own life in 390 acres of land, worth $40 per acre, with an annual
rental value of $2.50 per acre, subject to an estate for the lives of
his father and mother, whose joint expectancy is 13 years. The
remainder in this real estate has been deeded by the grandparents to
the children of appellant, he having at this time but the one.
Appellant is an able-bodied man, well educated, and in good health,
and possessing earning ability. His parents are well to do, He is one
of two children. The appellee is not in the best of health, and was
not shown to have any property. His conduct towards her has not been
good. This litigation has been long continued. The position held by
the parties in society, and their habits of life, as shown by the
evidence, tend to demand a liberal allowance."


Barnett v. Lucas, 27 Ind.App. 441, 61 N.E. 683 (Ind.App. 2 Div.
1901). Action on an attachment bond by William T. Lucas against Levi
A. Barnett. "On June 3, 1895, John T. Barnett filed a complaint
against [William T. Lucas], and had a writ of attachment. [Levi A.
Barnett] signed the attachment bond as surety. The complaint charged
[William T. Lucas], who was at the time a resident of the Hawaiian
Islands, with having defrauded the plaintiff in an exchange of
merchandise located at Piqua, Ohio, for a tract of real estate in
Hendricks county, Ind. * * * The venue of the case was changed from
Hendricks to Putnam county. Trial in May, 1897. After three days had
been occupied, the plaintiff dismissed. Depositions were taken in the
Hawaiian Islands, at Salt Lake City, and in Ohio. The present action
was brought upon the attachment bond by [William T. Lucas] against
[Levi A. Barnett], his principal not being made a party."


Lee v. McClelland, 157 Ind. 84, 60 N.E. 692 (1901). Action by Elijah
Lee to recover custody of his unnamed son, who had been committed to
the reform school for boys by the Huntington circuit court.  Elijah
Lee made an affidavit that his said son was born on the 5 Jul 1886.


Morgan v. Hoadley, 156 Ind. 320, 59 N.E. 935 (1901). Mary E. G.
Morgan was wife of John Morgan.


Hord v. Bradbury, 156 Ind. 20, 59 N.E. 27 (1901). George P. Bissell
died on 11 Apr 1891.


Cleveland, C., C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Parker, 154 Ind. 153, 56 N.E. 86
(1900). Henry E. Hurshman, a railroad engineer, died when the engine
he was operating overturned on a side track.




"HENDRICKS COUNTY" & DA(BEF 1950) & DA(AFT 1899)
Start at Case #131


Bray v. Miles, 23 Ind.App. 432, 54 N.E. 446 (Ind.App. Jun 30, 1899),
reh'g denied, 23 Ind.App. 432, 55 N.E. 510 (Ind.App. Nov 29, 1899)


Hinshaw v. State, 147 Ind. 334, 47 N.E. 157 at 158-159 (Ind. Apr 02,
1897):  "[William E. Hinshaw] was indicted in the Hendricks circuit
court for murder in the first degree in the alleged killing of his
wife, Thirza Hinshaw, in the county of Hendricks, on the 10th day of
January, 1895. * * * * Briefly stated, the known circumstances of the
killing are, in substance, as follows: The appellant was born and
raised on a farm in Randolph county, in this state. After he reached
21 years of age, he taught school in winter, and farmed or helped his
father farm during the summer season. On February 24, 1887, he was
married in that county to Thirza Oiler, who had been reared upon a
farm in said county, and whom he had known since he was 13 years old.
He continued to reside in Randolph county, thus occupied, until the
fall of 1892, when he removed to the town of Belleville, in Hendricks
county, and for two years taught the public schools there. In
September, 1894, he entered the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and was assigned to the Belleville circuit as such minister,
and continued to preach therein until the time of the death of his
wife, on January 10, 1895."


William Smith
Elmer E. Smith (a son of this plaintiff),



U.S. Saving Fund & Investment Co. v. Harris, 142 Ind. 226, 40 N.E.
1072 (1895), reh'g denied, 142 Ind. 226, 41 N.E. 451 (1895)

The substance of the separate answer of appellee Lotta B. Harris, by
her guardian ad litem, is: That she was born on January 13, 1876, and
hence was an infant when the note, bond, and mortgage sued on were
executed, to wit, January 20, 1893, she being at that time but 17
years of age. That she was married to her codefendant, John W., on
February 1, 1892, and has ever since been his wife. That on October
19, 1892, her father and mother made a gift to her and her said
husband of the real estate described in the mortgage, and conveyed
the same to them by a general warranty deed, designating and
describing them therein as husband and wife, the granting part of
which reads thus: "Convey and warrant to John W. Harris and Lottie B.
Harris, his wife." Then follows the description of the real estate
conveyed; the same being a lot in the town of Danville, Hendricks
county, Ind. That said deed was duly recorded in the recorder's
office in said county on October 29, 1892, which was more than three
months before the note and mortgage sued on were executed.
U.S. Saving Fund & Investment Co. v. Harris, 40 N.E. 1072
(Cite as: 40 N.E. 1072, *1072)


First Nat. Bank v. Hanna, 12 Ind.App. 240, 39 N.E. 1054 (Ind.App.
1895)

This appeal was taken from the rulings of the court below upon
certain exceptions to the final report of the appellee, as
administrator of the estate of John Hanna, deceased, and comes to us
by way of an order of transfer from the supreme court. The facts
underlying the case are as follows: John Hanna, the appellee's
decedent, died October 24, 1882, intestate, leaving the appellee,
Emma Hanna, his widow, and 10 children surviving him. The appellee
Wilbur A. Hanna, on the 8th day of November, 1882, was appointed
administrator of the estate of said intestate, and on the 26th day of
December, 1883, filed his petition in the Hendricks circuit court to
sell real estate to pay decedent's debts. In the petition the
administrator averred that Hanna died the owner in fee simple of
certain real estate therein particularly described in parcels, to
wit: No. 1, certain real estate in Putnam county; No. 2, also in
Putnam county; No. 3, lot No. 45 in Young's Subd. to Indianapolis;
No. 4, lot No. 46 in Young's Subd. to Indianapolis; No. 5, part of
lot No 13 in Coburn's Subd. to Indianapolis; No. 6, lots 3 and 4 and
an undivided one-fourth of lots 5 and 6 in the Commissioners' Subd.,
etc., to Indianapolis; No. 7, 176 acres in Hendricks county,
described in record; No. 8, 174 acres in Hendricks county, also
described. In the decree of sale it was provided how the proceeds
thereof should be applied by the administrator, with which order the
latter complied. Having sold all the real estate and applied the
proceeds as directed, the administrator filed his final report, and
asked to be discharged. To this report the appellant filed six
exceptions, and subsequently added a seventh.
First Nat. Bank v. Hanna, 39 N.E. 1054
(Cite as: 39 N.E. 1054, *1054)

The court sustained a demurrer to the second exception, and this
ruling is also assigned as error. This exception seeks to prevent the
approval of the report upon the ground that the administrator did not
apply the rents of the real estate to the judgment or the debts of
the estate. It avers that parcel No. 1, 18.53 acres, adjoining the
town of Greencastle, was of the rental value of $10 per month; parcel
No. 2, 4 acres in Greencastle, was of the value of $20 per month;
parcel No. 3, being lot No. 45 in Young's Subd. to Indianapolis, was
of the rental value of $20 per month; parcel No. 4, viz. lot No. 46
in Young's Subd. to Indianapolis, was of the rental value of $20 a
month; parcel No. 7, viz. a farm of 176 acres in Hendricks county,
was of the rental value of $800 a year; and parcel No. 8, 124 acres
improved land in Hendricks county, Ind., was of the rental value of
$300 per year. The exception demands that the administrator be
charged with said rent for all but the 40 acres reserved to the widow
and family. . . .
First Nat. Bank v. Hanna, 39 N.E. 1054
(Cite as: 39 N.E. 1054, *1055)



Talbott v. Barber, 11 Ind.App. 1, 38 N.E. 487, 54 Am.St.Rep. 491
(Ind.App. Oct 18, 1894)
11 Ind.App. 1, 54 Am.St.Rep. 491

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; J. B. Hadley, Judge.
Action by Susan Barber against John E. Talbott, administrator. There
was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

. . . The substance of the complaint is that during the year 1872 the
appellee, Susan Barber, was the wife of Thomas Barber, then alive,
but since deceased; that she and her said husband then resided in
Hendricks county, Ind.; that her said husband was then the owner in
fee of 160 acres of land in Hendricks county, Ind., of the value of
$7,500, in which the appellee then had her inchoate right and
interest as the wife of said Thomas Barber. Then follows a
description of the land, which we omit. It is then averred that while
appellee and her said husband were in possession of said land, he
being the owner as aforesaid, to wit, on the 2d day of October, 1872,
her said husband was indebted to Jesse Durham, the husband of the
decedent, Isabel Durham, in the sum of $4,000, evidenced by the
promissory notes of said Thomas Barber for said amount . . .
Talbott v. Barber, 38 N.E. 487
(Cite as: 38 N.E. 487, *488)



Bateman v. Butler, 124 Ind. 223, 24 N.E. 989 (Ind. Jun 04, 1890)
In April, 1883, John M. Bateman, his wife, Sarah A. Bateman, and his
son, Aden Bateman, lived upon a parcel of land containing about three
acres near the town of North Salem, in Hendricks county, belonging to
Lindley L. Thrift. There was a flouring-mill on the land, and the
entire property was purchased by John M. Bateman.
Bateman v. Butler, 24 N.E. 989
(Cite as: 24 N.E. 989, *989)


Bristor v. Bristor, 93 Ind. 281, 1883 WL 6027 (Ind. Nov 21, 1883)
(NO. 10943)

Esther A. Bristor, the appellee, inherited from her father in common
with her brother, John Kellum, several parcels of real property; in
December, 1846, an agreement of partition was made allotting to her a
lot in Indianapolis; in execution of this agreement a deed was
executed by Kellum, but instead of making it to the appellee it was
made to herself and her husband; the sole reason for so writing the
deed was the statement of the justice by whom it was drawn that this
was the only legal form in which it could be made.
Bristor v. Bristor, 93 Ind. 281
(Cite as: 1883 WL 6027, *1 (Ind.))


Bristor v. Bristor, 101 Ind. 47, 1885 WL 4360 (Ind. Jun 08, 1885)
(NO. 11851)

Appellants William A. Bristor and Elizabeth Hamlet, as the only
children and as heirs of Samuel M. Bristor, deceased, sued Esther
Bristor, their mother, and the widow of said deceased, for two-thirds
of the rent for the home residence occupied by the widow.
The appellee and said Samuel M. Bristor were married in 1842, and he
died in 1879 intestate. Appellee was the daughter of one Christopher
Kellum, deceased, and in July, 1842, she and her brother, John
Kellum, agreed upon a partition among themselves of all the real
estate of which their father died seized, they being his only heirs.
Part of the real estate embraced in this agreement was a lot on
Washington street, adjoining the property upon which the building
known as the "Vance Block" is now situated, in the city of
Indianapolis. By this agreement, this lot was to be set off to
appellee, the deed to which from said John Kellum was executed to her
and her husband jointly. Her husband afterwards built a store-room
upon this property, which building is yet standing. The husband was a
carriage maker, and an industrious and economical man. In 1858 he
bought a lot on Delaware street, in Indianapolis, taking the deed in
his own name, and erected a dwelling-house thereon, in which house he
resided until his death, and this is the property in controversy.
After the death of Samuel M. Bristor, in 1879, appellee was appointed
administratrix of his estate, and filed a claim against said estate,
alleging that deceased had collected the rents of the Washington
street property in a large sum, which she was entitled to recover
against his estate, which was disallowed by the court. An appeal was
taken to this court, and the judgment reversed for error in the
admission of testimony. The case is reported as Bristor v. Bristor,
82 Ind. 276.
Another trial was had, resulting in favor of appellee, who recovered
a judgment for $5,000. The case was again brought to this court, and
the judgment again reversed, upon the ground that the evidence showed
no right of recovery in appellee, and is reported as Bristor v.
Bristor, 93 Ind. 281.
Bristor v. Bristor, 101 Ind. 47
(Cite as: 1885 WL 4360, *1 (Ind.))

Appellee and deceased were married in 1842; at that time deceased had
very little property; appellee owned the Washington street lot, with
an old frame building situated thereon, and some Hendricks county
real estate. In 1853 or 1854 they sold the Hendricks county land, and
with the proceeds thereof, the rents of the Washington street
property, and some borrowed money by deceased, the old frame building
was removed, and a new brick business house was erected upon the
Washington street lot at a cost of some $4,000.
Bristor v. Bristor, 101 Ind. 47
(Cite as: 1885 WL 4360, *3 (Ind.))


Derry v. Derry, 98 Ind. 319, 1884 WL 5746 (Ind. Nov 22, 1884)
This action was brought by the appellee against the appellants for
the partition of certain real estate in Hancock county, Indiana. The
complaint, in substance, averred that one Jeremiah Derry died
intestate, seized of the land in controversy, leaving surviving him,
as his only heirs at law, the appellee, who is his widow, and the
appellants, who are his children and grandchildren; that the
appellee, as such widow, was the owner of the one undivided third
part of said land, and that the other two-thirds were owned by the
appellants in certain specified shares. Wherefore she prayed that her
interest therein might be set apart to her, etc.
An answer in three paragraphs was filed, but afterwards the first
paragraph, being the general denial, was withdrawn. In the second
paragraph it was averred that the appellants were the only heirs at
law of Malinda Derry, deceased, who was, at the time of her death,
the wife of said Jeremiah Derry; that Malinda, in her lifetime,
authorized and empowered her husband to purchase for her the land in
controversy, and that he accordingly purchased the same for her, and
paid the purchase-money therefor with her money, which she furnished
for that purpose, and that he, without her knowledge or consent,
caused the land to be conveyed to himself. In the third paragraph it
was alleged, as in the second, that the appellants were the only
heirs at law of Malinda Derry, who was at the time of her death the
wife of said Jeremiah Derry, and it was then averred that on the --
day of _____, 1853, Malinda purchased of Warren G. Smoot the land in
controversy, and paid him the full price therefor with money of her
own separate estate; that at the time of said purchase and the
execution of the deed of conveyance for the land, it was agreed by
and between her and her husband, in good faith and without any
fraudulent intent, that Smoot should execute the deed for said land
to her husband, and that he should hold the same in trust for her;
that, in pursuance of said agreement, Smoot conveyed the land to her
husband, who, from that time until his death, held the same in trust
for her and her heirs; that she, in pursuance of and under said
agreement, made lasting and valuable improvements on the land, and
paid for them with her own separate money.
Derry v. Derry, 98 Ind. 319
(Cite as: 1884 WL 5746, *1 (Ind.))

Pounds v. Chatham, 96 Ind. 342, 1884 WL 5837 (Ind. Jun 24, 1884)

Affiant says that said Joseph B. Pounds resides in Hendricks county,
and is not a householder, and that she is informed and believes said
defendant recently, and only about three months since, had one
hundred and sixty acres of land in Lyon county, Kansas, of the value
of $2,000, which he conveyed to his brother, Archibald P. Pounds, and
that he also had a lot of bees of the probable value of $40, the
proceeds of which he unjustly refuses to apply on plaintiff's debt,
or toward the satisfaction of said execution.
Pounds v. Chatham, 96 Ind. 342
(Cite as: 1884 WL 5837, *1 (Ind.))


Hopkins v. Quinn, 93 Ind. 223, 1884 WL 5158 (Ind. Feb 20, 1884)

Appellee sued appellant on a claim against the estate of John Ward,
deceased. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and an answer of
set-off was filed, to which a demurrer was sustained. There was a
trial by jury, verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment rendered upon
the verdict. The errors complained of are the overruling of the
demurrer to the complaint, and the sustaining of the demurrer to the
answer.
The complaint is as follows:
"Comes now said plaintiff and complains of said defendant, and says
that the defendant's decedent departed this life on the -- day of
December, 1876, testate, leaving the following will:
'Brownsburg, Hendricks county, Indiana, November 25th, 1876. The last
will and testament of John Ward. Considering the uncertainty of this
life, and being in sound mind and memory, I do make and publish this
my last will and testament, in manner and form following, to wit: I
hereby constitute and appoint my wife, Ellen Ward, to be the sole
executrix of this my last will, directing her to pay all my just
debts and funeral expenses, and the legacies hereinafter given, out
of my estate.
Second. I give and bequeath to my wife, Ellen Ward, all the personal
estate and real estate owned by me at my death, during her natural
life, and at her death I will that she equally give and bequeath the
remaining part of my property among her heirs and mine, viz.: Timothy
Quinn, James Quinn, Hannah Mullen, her brothers and sisters and their
heirs; and Thomas Ward, Mrs. Catharine Logan, my brother and sister;
also, my sister, Mary Ward and her heirs, and the heirs of my brother
and sister, Mrs. Catharine Logan.' "
Hopkins v. Quinn, 93 Ind. 223
(Cite as: 1884 WL 5158, *1 (Ind.))


Wilhite v. Hamrick, 92 Ind. 594, 1884 WL 5133 (Ind. Jan 05, 1884)
(NO. 11332)
This was a suit by the appellee, Ellen O. Hamrick, against the
appellants, William Wilhite and Melvin Harkrider, to recover the
possession of certain real estate, particularly described, in
Hendricks county.
. . .
Before considering any of the questions arising under either of these
alleged errors, it may be premised that the appellee averred in her
complaint, which was filed and this suit commenced on the 23d day of
April, 1883, that she was then, and had been for eighteen years then
last past, a married woman and the wife of one James W. Hamrick.
Perhaps, this averment is out of its place in appellee's complaint,
and ought to have appeared in her reply; but counsel on both sides,
below and in this court, have treated the appellee's continuous
coverture for eighteen years, as properly pleaded and shown in her
complaint, and we will so consider it.
Wilhite v. Hamrick, 92 Ind. 594
(Cite as: 1884 WL 5133, *1 (Ind.))



Caywood v. Medsker, 84 Ind. 520, 1882 WL 6960 (Ind. Nov Term 1882)

Keynote: Under Rev.St.1881, § 2508 (Burns' Ann.St. § 6-2337),
providing that, "if a husband die leaving a widow, one-third of his
real estate shall descend to her in fee simple free from all demands
of creditors: provided, that if a man marry a second wife and has by
her no children, but has children alive by a previous wife, the land
which at his death descends to such wife shall at her death descend
to his children," held, that a second childless wife took a fee free
from all demands of creditors.

Elizabeth Parker, one of the appellants, was then and is still the
wife of the said William O. Parker; that she was not a party to nor
bound by the judgment upon which said land was sold; but that she is
the second wife of the said William O. Parker, and has no child by
him, and is now beyond the age and period of life at which it is
possible for her to bear or have children, but that the said William
O. Parker has children living by a former wife, now deceased, who are
made parties defendants; that William O. Parker and Elizabeth Parker
are still in possession of said premises, and have held possession of
the same ever since said sale was made by said sheriff to said
Barnes, and have received the rents thereof, which were worth $500.
It is also stated that Elizabeth Caywood, Julia Hufford, John A.
Hufford, John W. Parker, Jacob Parker, Henry L. Parker and Israel
Hendrickson, as the appellee is informed and believes, claim to have
and assert some right in or title to said land, which constitutes a
cloud upon his title thereto.
Caywood v. Medsker, 84 Ind. 520
(Cite as: 1882 WL 6960, *1 (Ind.))

The appellants, Elizabeth Parker, Elizabeth Caywood, Julia Hufford,
John W. Parker, Jacob Parker and Henry L. Parker, filed an answer in
one paragraph, alleging that the said Elizabeth Caywood, Julia
Hufford, John W. Parker, Jacob Parker and Henry L. Parker are
children of the defendant William O. Parker by a former wife, now
deceased, and that the defendant Elizabeth Parker is now the second
wife of the said William O. Parker; and they pray the court to order
and decree upon the final hearing of said cause, that one-third in
value of the land described in the complaint be assigned and set
apart to the said Elizabeth Parker during her life, and at her death
to go in fee simple to the defendants Elizabeth Caywood, Julia
Hufford, John W. Parker, Jacob Parker and Henry L. Parker, as the
children of said William O. Parker.
Caywood v. Medsker, 84 Ind. 520
(Cite as: 1882 WL 6960, *2 (Ind.))


Ayers v. Burns, 87 Ind. 245, 1882 WL 7021, 44 Am.Rep. 759 (Ind. Nov
Term 1882)
This was a suit by the appellee, administrator of the estate of Mary
Ayers, deceased, against the appellants, Gardner Ayers, an infant,
and Jonathan H. Johnson, guardian of such infant's person and estate.
The appellants jointly answered by a general denial of the complaint.
The issues joined were tried by the court, and, at the appellants'
request, the court made a special finding of the facts, and stated
its conclusions of law thereon, in substance, as follows:
"1st. That on the 2d day of November, A. D. 1878, defendant Gardner
Ayers was under indictment by the grand jury of Hendricks county,
State of Indiana, charged with the crime of murder in the first
degree (the murder of his father), and was in the custody of the
sheriff of said county, under arrest on said charge, and was
arraigned on said charge and was compelled to go to trial thereon, in
the circuit court of said county, and it was necessary for his proper
defence to said indictment that he should have counsel to defend him;
and that defendant Gardner Ayers, together with his mother Mary
Ayers, now the plaintiff's decedent, on the 2d day of November, A. D.
1878, executed the two promissory notes mentioned in the complaint,
each being for two hundred and fifty dollars, payable two months
after said day, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum,
and ten per cent. attorneys' fees, one payable to the order of
Leander M. Campbell, and the other to the order of John T. Burns,
attorneys at law of said court.
Ayers v. Burns, 87 Ind. 245
(Cite as: 1882 WL 7021, *1 (Ind.))


Straughan v. White, 88 Ind. 242, 1882 WL 7054 (Ind. Nov Term 1882)
The cause was submitted to the court for trial. At the request of the
appellant the court found the facts specially, and stated the
conclusions of law thereon. The finding is as follows:
"The plaintiff, Mary White, is now, and for many years has been, the
wife of Bloomfield White; that during their marriage said Bloomfield
acquired by purchase the title in fee to, and possession of, the
following described lands in Hendricks county and State of Indiana,
to wit: The southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 11,
in township 16 north, of range 2 west; that on the 15th day of
September, 1880, the defendant Elisha M. Straughan instituted suit in
the Hendricks Circuit Court against the said Bloomfield White, to
enforce the specific performance of a parol contract of said White to
convey said lands to said Straughan
Straughan v. White, 88 Ind. 242
(Cite as: 1882 WL 7054, *1 (Ind.))



In 1879, Sallie Hadley was the wife of Amos Hadley


Hadley v. Hadley, 82 Ind. 95, 1882 WL 6159 (Ind. May Term 1882)
It was proven that in the spring of 1880, the appellee went to the
State of Kansas, leaving the property in dispute with his parents,
Amos and Sallie Hadley, in Hendricks county, Indiana. It was agreed
by the parties, that on the 25th day of August, 1880, the wheat, mare
and heifer in controversy were in the actual possession of Amos and
Sallie Hadley, in Hendricks county, Indiana
Hadley v. Hadley, 82 Ind. 95
(Cite as: 1882 WL 6159, *1 (Ind.))


Ayers v. Adams, 82 Ind. 109, 1882 WL 6161 (Ind. May Term 1882) (NO.
8792)
The facts are, that William Ayers died on the 15th of January, 1877,
leaving a wife and seven children surviving him, to whom eighty odd
acres of land descended. The appellant was one, and James, the
execution debtor, was another. Immediately after the death of William
Ayers, the appellee commenced a suit against James, upon the claim he
held against him, and pending this suit James Ayers, at the instance
of the administrator of the estate of William Ayers, deceased,
executed a mortgage upon the interest in the land so inherited from
his father, to secure the payment of two notes made by him to his
father four or five years before, for borrowed money. This mortgage
was at once recorded, and afterwards, to wit, on the 20th of March,
1877, the appellee recovered judgment against James, in the Hendricks
Circuit Court, for $200. In December, 1877, James Ayers conveyed the
land to the appellant, who agreed, in consideration of such
conveyance, to pay the mortgage then held by the administrator, which
then amounted to $318.85; and afterwards the appellant did pay the
mortgage, by executing a receipt to the administrator for such
portion of the sum secured by it as he was entitled to upon
distribution, and by obtaining from his mother, his brothers and
sisters like receipts for their respective shares upon distribution,
which vouchers the administrator accepted in payment of the mortgage,
and entered it satisfied of record.
Ayers v. Adams, 82 Ind. 109
(Cite as: 1882 WL 6161, *2 (Ind.))


Eastes v. Eastes, 79 Ind. 363, 1881 WL 7136 (Ind. Nov Term 1881) (NO.
8595)
This suit was commenced by the appellee, on the 14th day of October,
1879, to obtain a divorce from the appellant, her husband, the
custody of their infant son, and alimony in the sum of $5,000.
Eastes v. Eastes, 79 Ind. 363
(Cite as: 1881 WL 7136, *1 (Ind.))



Farman v. Lauman, 73 Ind. 568, 1881 WL 6388 (Ind. May Term 1881) (NO.
7788)
This was an action by husband and wife, Charles A. Lauman and Mary J.
Lauman, to recover for personal injury to the latter, alleged to have
been inflicted upon her by the appellant. The complaint is in three
paragraphs:
The first charges an assault and battery.
Farman v. Lauman, 73 Ind. 568
(Cite as: 1881 WL 6388, *1 (Ind.))
It having been shown to the court that the appellee Mary J. Lauman
has died since the submission of this appeal, judgment of affirmance
is entered as of the date of May 29th, 1879.



Terre Haute & I.R. Co. v. Clark, 73 Ind. 168, 1880 WL 6487 (Ind. Nov
Term 1880) (NO. 7900)
The action was by the appellee against the appellant for causing the
death of William Spaulding, the appellee suing as administrator of
the estate of the deceased.
The complaint is in two paragraphs.
In both paragraphs it is shown that on the 30th day of January, 1878,
the said William Spaulding was travelling in his wagon, drawn by two
horses, along a public highway leading from the Cumberland road, in
Hendricks County, Indiana, to the town of Danville, in the same
county, which highway is known as the ""Danville and Cartersburg
Gravel Road," and crosses defendant's railroad in the midst of the
town of Cartersburg, in said county of Hendricks.
Terre Haute & I.R. Co. v. Clark, 73 Ind. 168
(Cite as: 1880 WL 6487, *1 (Ind.))


Medsker v. Parker, 70 Ind. 509, 1880 WL 6530 (Ind. Nov Term 1880)
The complaint in this case charged, that on the 27th day of November,
1876, William O. Parker executed to one Aimee J. Medsker his note for
five hundred and fifty dollars and five per cent. attorney's fees,
and payable one year after date with ten per cent. interest; that,
concurrently with the execution of such note, the said William O.
Parker and Elizabeth Parker, his wife, executed a mortgage on certain
lands in Hendricks county, of which the said William O. Parker was
the owner in fee-simple, to the said Aimee J. Medsker, to secure the
payment of such note, which mortgage was recorded in due time; that,
before maturity, the said Aimee J. Medsker sold and assigned said
note and mortgage to one William P. Shirley; that afterward Shirley
sold and assigned the note and mortgage to one Alpha Medsker; that
afterward the said Alpha sold and assigned the note and mortgage to
Carrie A. Medsker, the plaintiff, who afterward intermarried with,
and became the wife of the said Alpha; that on the 31st day of
January, 1877, the State, on the relation of Alfred A. Barnes, as
guardian of the said Alpha, recovered a judgment in the court below,
for one thousand four hundred and thirty-one dollars and ninety-seven
cents, against the said William O. Parker; that on the 9th day of
February, 1877, an execution was issued on said judgment to the
sheriff of Hendricks county, who levied said execution on the lands
mortgaged as above, and sold all the interest and estate of the said
William O. Parker in and to the same, to the said Barnes, as such
guardian, for one thousand five hundred and forty dollars and
sixty-two cents; that the said Barnes afterward caused the sheriff to
convey the interest and estate in said lands so purchased by him to
the said Alpha, who afterward conveyed such interest and estate to
the plaintiff; that, while he was the owner of such mortgaged lands,
the said Alpha instituted proceedings in partition against the said
Elizabeth Parker and others, for the partition of such lands, which
resulted in the assignment and setting off to the said Elizabeth of
one-third in value of such lands, by metes and bounds, during her
natural life, she being the second wife of the said William O.
Parker, and without issue by him.
Medsker v. Parker, 70 Ind. 509
(Cite as: 1880 WL 6530, *1 (Ind.))



Lowry v. State, 64 Ind. 421, 1878 WL 6391 (Ind. Nov Term 1878)

This was an action by the State, on the relation of John W. Hull,
guardian of Fannie Hull and Jennie Hull, minor heirs of Mary E. Hull,
deceased, against Oscar H. Hull and William J. Lowry, on a guardian's
bond.
The defendant Oscar H. Hull made default, and Lowry answered in
general denial.
Issue being thus joined, the cause was submitted to the court for
trial, and, at the request of the defendant Lowry, the court made a
special finding of the facts. So much of the special finding as is
material for our consideration here, with the conclusions of law
thereon, was substantially as follows:
"On the 25th day of April, 1865, the defendant Oscar H. Hull was
appointed by the court of common pleas of Hendricks county as the
guardian of Fannie Hull and Jennie Hull, who are his own children,
and who were aged respectively, at said date, five and three years,
at which time the said guardian executed his bond in the penal sum of
$600.00, with one Oliver W. Hill as his surety. Under this
appointment said guardian received $50.00 worth of personal property
belonging to his wards, consisting of household goods which had
belonged to their mother, then deceased, and which has never been
sold, but has been retained by him and used by said wards, and is now
in his possession, and subject to the order and control of the
present relator and guardian.
Afterward, at the May term, 1865, of the court of common pleas of
Hendricks county, said guardian filed his petition in said court to
sell the real estate of his wards, and was duly ordered and
authorized to sell the same, at which time he executed a bond to the
State of Indiana, in the penal sum of $3,300, with William G. Parker
as his security, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties
of his trust according to law in that behalf, which bond was duly
approved by the court, and on the same day said guardian reported to
the court that he had sold, pursuant to the order of said court, the
real estate of his wards, to William W. Irons, for the sum of
$1,648.14, $500 of which was received in cash, and for the balance of
which he took a note of the purchaser, without security, due December
25th, 1865; that of the $500 received in cash said guardian
appropriated to his own use $300, at the time of its receipt, and
used the $200 remaining, for the benefit of his wards, for which he
afterward filed vouchers that were approved by the court.
The note taken for the deferred payment on the real estate was traded
and assigned by said guardian, before it became due, to William G.
Parker, who was his surety, in part payment for an interest in a
stock of goods which was bought by said guardian for his own use, and
not for the benefit of his wards. The goods were afterward resold to
said Parker, but were never paid for by him, he, said Parker,
afterward becoming insolvent and dying so, being indebted to said
guardian at the time of his death in the sum of $3,100, which was
reduced to a judgment and a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage in
the Hendricks Circuit Court, in favor of said defendant Hull and
against said William G. Parker, on the 23d day of May, 1873, which
judgment remains unpaid, and is of no value, the mortgaged premises
being at the time encumbered to their full value, by older and
paramount liens.
*2 The court further finds that said guardian received no other money
or property of his wards, from any other source than as above set
out.
On the 3d day of January, 1867, Oliver W. Hill, security on the
original guardian's bond, filed his application to be released, and
on the 22d day of January, 1867, said guardian, Oscar H. Hull,
executed another bond, with William G. Parker as his security, in the
penal sum of $4,500, conditioned for the faithful discharge of his
duties as such guardian.
On the 18th day of January, 1870, said Oscar H. Hull and said Lowry
executed the bond now sued upon, in the penal sum of $4,000. This was
done voluntarily, without any order of court, either directing it to
be done or releasing the security, William G. Parker, on the bond
previously given.
On the 19th day of January, 1870, said guardian made a report to the
proper court, in which he acknowledged that he was indebted to his
wards in the sum of $2,734.53, which report was approved by the
court, and which was placed on the files and remains there still. On
the 19th day of January, 1872, said Oscar H. Hull again reported to
the proper court that he was indebted to his wards in the sum of
$2,982.53. On the 1st day of May, 1874, said guardian filed in the
Hendricks Circuit Court his report No. 4, in which he acknowledged
himself to be indebted to his wards in the sum of $3,557.67.
At the time of making these several reports, said guardian had not,
in fact, any money of his wards' in his hands or under his control,
nor has he received, nor did he receive, any money or property of
said wards' subsequent to the execution of the bond by said guardian
and William J. Lowry, on the 18th day of January, 1870; * * * that
said guardian was able, and did possess sufficient property or means,
to properly maintain and support said wards without the use of their
own means; that, upon a full accounting between said guardian and his
said wards at this date, there would be a balance due said wards,
from said guardian, of $4,761.93; that, on the 23d day of January,
1877, said Oscar H. Hull tendered his resignation, as guardian, to
the said Hendricks Circuit Court, which was accepted, and the
relator, John W. Hull, was appointed his successor in said trust. * *
*
It is further found that said Hull, on the day he gave the bond sued
on, and before it was given, to wit, January 19th, 1870, made a
settlement with the proper court, in which he accounted for, and
acknowledged to be in his hands, and owing to his said wards, the sum
of $2,684.53; that afterward, to wit, on the 25th day of January,
1872, he made a further settlement, charging himself with the sum of
$2,932.53, due to his said wards, and, on further settlement with
said court, made April 18th, 1874, he acknowledged his indebtedness
to said wards to be $3,557.67.
These are the facts, as I find them from the evidence; and the
conclusions of law to which I come from them are, that the plaintiff
is entitled to recover from the defendant Oscar H. Hull the said sum
of forty-seven hundred and sixty- one dollars and ninety-three cents,
and from the said defendant Lowry the sum of four thousand dollars,
and judgment is therefore accordingly rendered. And the defendant
Lowry now excepts to the conclusions of law drawn by the court from
the facts found."
Lowry v. State, 64 Ind. 421
(Cite as: 1878 WL 6391, *2 (Ind.))


Martha E. Adams was the wife of Clinton Adams

Sarah C. Armstrong, the wife of said John S. Armstrong

William Hudson, the husband of Charity
Martha Shumaker and her infant son James Shumaker

Zachariah S. Ragan son of Robert Ragan



Leary v. State, 39 Ind. 544, 1872 WL 5592 (Ind. May Term 1872)
"The grand jurors of Hendricks county, in the State of Indiana, good
and lawful men, duly and legally impanelled, charged, and sworn to
inquire into felonies and certain misdemeanors in and for the body of
said county of Hendricks, in the name and by the authority of the
State of Indiana, upon their oaths, present that Patrick C. Leary and
James Leary, late of said county, on the 17th day of September, 1870,
at said county and State aforesaid, did then and there keep a certain
house in which intoxicating liquors were sold, bartered, given away,
and suffered to be drank, and then and there kept said house in a
disorderly manner, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases
made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of
Indiana."
Leary v. State, 39 Ind. 544
(Cite as: 1872 WL 5592, *1 (Ind.))
We have examined the evidence, and are of the opinion that it
entirely failed to make out a case against the appellant. It was
shown upon the trial, that the appellant and Patrick C. Leary kept a
house in the village of Brownsburgh, in which groceries and liquors
were sold; that on the 20th day of September, 1870, there was a large
meeting of Irish, engaged in the construction of a railroad, in the
said town; that in the afternoon of said day, a riot and general
fight took place in the alley near to, and in the stable in the rear
of, said business house; but there was no evidence that the Irish had
purchased any liquor from the Learys that day, or that they had drank
any in their house.
Leary v. State, 39 Ind. 544
(Cite as: 1872 WL 5592, *1 (Ind.))
The judgment is reversed; and the cause is remanded, with directions
to the court below to quash the indictment.
Leary v. State, 39 Ind. 544
(Cite as: 1872 WL 5592, *2 (Ind.))



Sawyer v. State, 16 Ind. 93, 1861 WL 2654 (Ind. May Term 1861)
This was a prosecution instituted in the Hendricks Circuit Court,
against Iredel Sawyer and Thornton Sawyer; against the former, for
the murder of James Cooper, and against the latter as an accessory
before the fact. The indictment was returned into Court on August 23,
1859; the title thereof entered on the order book of the Court, and
the same duly recorded in the indictment record of Hendricks county.
At the August term, 1859, Thornton Sawyer was tried separately, and
convicted; and at the February term, 1860, Iredel Sawyer, on
affidavit, obtained a change of venue to Johnson county.
Sawyer v. State, 16 Ind. 93
(Cite as: 1861 WL 2654, *1 (Ind.))


Lovell v. State, 12 Ind. 18, 1859 WL 4630 (Ind. May Term 1859)
This was a prosecution for incest. The indictment charges that the
defendant, on the 10th of December, 1856, at Hendricks county, did,
then and there, have sexual intercourse with one Sarah E. Curtis, his
step-daughter, he, defendant, then and there well knowing, &c. Plea,
not guilty. Verdict for the state, upon which the Court, having
refused a new trial, rendered judgment, &c.
The record contains a bill of exceptions, which shows that upon the
trial Sarah E. Curtis was produced, and testified that on the first
of December, 1856, she was engaged in weaving, when the defendant,
her step-father, came into the room, pulled her off the loom, threw
her on the bed, and had sexual intercourse with her. At this point in
her testimony, the prosecution asked the witness whether the
defendant had had sexual intercourse with her at any subsequent time.
To the question thus propounded, the defendant objected, alleging as
his ground of objection, that one offense only was charged in the
indictment, and the state having located the offense charged on the
first Monday of December, had no right to prove another similar
offense at a different time. But the objection was overruled, and the
witness proceeded: "Defendant had sexual intercourse with me
afterwards--had such intercourse frequently. I cannot tell how often.
I gave birth to a child on the first of September, 1857. Defendant is
the father of the child." The refusal of the Court to sustain the
defendant's objection raises the only question in the case.
Lovell v. State, 12 Ind. 18
(Cite as: 1859 WL 4630, *1 (Ind.))


Matlock v. Matlock, 5 Ind. 403, 1854 WL 3326 (Ind. Nov Term 1854)
Nancy Matlock, the widow of William L. Matlock, filed her petition
for dower in the Court of Common Pleas of Hendricks county, making
the heirs at law of said William parties. The petition particularly
describes the land, and avers that said William departed this life,
on the 28th day of December, 1851, seized in fee simple of the same.
At the January term, 1854, the heirs, being infants, appeared by
their guardians, and answered the petition, and Jesse T. Matlock, the
administrator and late partner of said William, appeared in Court,
and asked to be made defendant to the petition. He was admitted, and
filed his answer, which was sworn to.
In the first paragraph he sets up a partnership between himself and
William, in buying and selling goods and merchandise, and in buying,
selling and breeding horses, mules, cattle, hogs, &c., which he avers
commenced in 1831, and continued until the death of said William,
under the name and style of William L. Matlock & Co.;
Matlock v. Matlock, 5 Ind. 403
(Cite as: 1854 WL 3326, *1 (Ind.))


Osborn v. Dodd, 8 Blackf. 467, 1847 WL 2536 (Ind. Nov Term 1847)
Bill in chancery by Ennis Dodd against Job Osborn, the administrator,
Rebecca Robbins, (now Rebecca Fincher) the widow, and others, the
heirs, of Michael Robbins, deceased, praying the rescission of a
contract for the purchase of a tract of land, a perpetual injunction
upon a judgment at law for the unpaid purchase-money, and
compensation for valuable improvements made upon the land.
Osborn v. Dodd, 8 Blackf. 467
(Cite as: 1847 WL 2536, *1 (Ind.))

Taylor v. M'Crackin, 2 Blackf. 260, 1829 WL 958 (Ind. May Term 1829)
William M'Crackin commenced an action of disseisin against Isaac
Taylor, for a tract of land in Hendricks county, on the 3d of
January, 1829. Taylor pleaded not guilty. He also pleaded that
William M'Crackin, who was possessed of the legal title to the said
tract of land, bargained and sold the said land to Robert M'Crackin,
and executed to said Robert a title-bond for said land This bond is
set out in the plea; is dated the 31st of May, 1826; is in the
penalty of 1,000 dollars, conditioned for the conveyance of the said
tract of land to the said Robert, his heirs, &c.; and is under the
seal of the said William M'Crackin. This plea states that, at the
time of executing said bond, the said William put the said Robert
into peaceable possession of the said land, who continued to reside
thereon until the 9th of June in the same year, when he departed this
life, leaving Mary M'Crackin, his widow, in peaceable possession;
that said Mary, being entitled to dower in the said land, continued
in possession of the mansion-house, and messuage thereunto belonging,
situated on the said tract of land; and that while so in possession,
on the 27th of December, 1827, she intermarried with the said Taylor,
who, in right of his said wife, still continues in possession of the
mansion-house and messuage aforesaid, dower of the said land not
having been assigned to the said Mary, nor to the said Taylor. To
this plea there was a demurrer; which was correctly sustained; not
only for the cause of demurrer assigned, viz., that the act of
assembly authorizing this action contemplates the whole case to be
tried on the issue of not guilty; but also because the subject-matter
of the plea is not a legal bar to this action.
Taylor v. M'Crackin, 2 Blackf. 260
(Cite as: 1829 WL 958, *1 (Ind.))