possession.—McCrum v. McCrum (Ind. App.)

TITLE.
415.
In action by co-tenants to recover from ten. Effect of appointment of receiver, see “Re-

Covenants, of title, see "Covenants," $ 1.
ant in possession for use and occupation, evi-
dence of rental value of land held competent. Effect of conditional sale, see “Sales," $ 7.

ceivers," $ 1.
-McCrum v. McCrum (Ind. App.) 415.

Necessary to sustain action for partition, see

"Partition," $ 1.
TENDER.

Of amendatory statute, see “Statutes," $ 3.

Removal of cloud, see “Quieting Title."
In proceedings to quiet tax title, see “Taxa- Sufficiency of title of vendor of land, see “Ven-
tion," $ 5.

dor and Purchaser," $ 2.
Necessity of including costs previously incurred, To islands, see "Waters 'and Water Courses,"

Tax titles, see "Taxation," $ 5.
see “Costs," $ 1.
To seller of goods purchased on breach of war-

$ 2.
ranty, see “Sales," $ 4.

TOOLS.
TERMINATION.

Liability of employer for defects, see "Master

and Servant," $$ 4, 10.
Of easement, see "Easements," $ 1.

TORTS.
TESTAMENT.

By particular classes of parties.
See "Wills."

See "Counties," $ 2; “Infants," § 3; "Munici-

pal Corporations," $ 12.
TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. Employés, see "Master and Servant," $ 10.
See “Wills," $8 2, 4.

Particular remedies for torts.

See "Trover and Conversion," 1.
TESTAMENTARY POWERS.

Particular torts..
Restrictions on power to devise or bequeath, see

See "Assault and Battery," $ 1; "Conspiracy,"
“Wills," 8 1.

81; "Frauds"; "Libel and Slander"; "Mali-
cious Prosecution"; "Negligence"; "Vuis-

ance"; "Trover and Conversion.'
THEATERS AND SHOWS. Abuse of process, see “Process," $ 2.

Causing death, see "Death," $ 1.
Invalidating tickets purchased on sidewalk as Civil damages from sale of liquors, see "In-

unlawful interference with right to sell prop toxicating Liquors,” 3.
erty, see "Constitutional Law," $ 2.
Warranty in lease of theater building, see

*No person or combination of persons can
“Landlord and Tenant," § 1.

legally obstructor interfere with another in

the conduct of his lawful business.—Purington
*Clause in theater ticket, providing that if v. Hinchliff (Ill.) 47.
sold by the purchaser on the sidewalk it would
be refused at the door, held valid.—Collister v.
Hayman (N. Y.) 20.

TOWNS.
*Theater ticket held a license revocable for See "Counties"; "Municipal Corporations":
violation of reasonable conditions.—Collister v. “Schools and School Districts," $ 1.
Hayman (N. Y.) 20.

Mandamus affecting right to custody of town

funds, see “Mandamus," $ 2.

Mandamus to town officers, see "Mandamus,"
THEFT.

§ 3.
See “Larceny."

Repair of highways, see "Highways," $ 2.

8 1. Fiscal management, public debt,
TICKETS.

securities, and taxation.

Under Rev. Laws, c. 25, $15, chapter 13
See "Theaters and Shows."

88 6-8, 12, 13, and chapter 208, $ 102, tond
For carriage of passengers, see "Carriers," 8 5. held to have right to reimburse tree warden

and deputy tree warden for expense incurred in

defense of trees in highways and village
TIME.

square.-Hixo

Inhabitants of Sharon

(Mass.) 909.
For bringing action for wrongful death, see

"Death," $ 1.
For filing, bill of exceptions, see “Exceptions, TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES.

Bill of," $ 2.
For filing objections in condemnation proceed- Harmless error in injunction restraining use of
ings, see “Eminent Domain," $ 3.

trade-name, see "Appeal and Error," $ 22.
For performance of gas lease, see “Mines and s 1. Registration, regulation, and of-
Minerals," $ 2.

fenses.
For redemption, see “Mortgages," $ 5.
Reasonable time

*Under 3 Starr & C. Ann. St. 1896, c. 140,
as question for jury, see
“Trial,” § 4.

par. 7, the sale of bottles of wine bearing cous-

terfeit label held an offense. -Vincendeau F.
*Where the court on the 11th of April gave

People (II.) 675.
appellant 90 days in which to file bills of ex Under 3 Starr & C. Ann. St. 1896, c. 140, pars.
ceptions, a filing on July 11th was too late.- 7, 8, a prosecution for the sale of goods bearing
Lewis Tp. Imp. Co. v. Royer (Ind. App.) counterfeit label cannot be maintained ercent
1068.

for acts done after the label has been filed with
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

the Secretary of State.-Vincendeau v. People

TRANSFER TAX.
(III.) 675.

In a prosecution for violation of 3 Starr & See “Taxation,” $ 6.
C. Ann. St. 1896, c. 140, pars. 6, 7, by knowing-
ly selling goods bearing a counterfeit label, an TRANSITORY ACTIONS.
instruction held erroneous.-Vincendeau v. Peo-
ple (III.) 675.

See "Venue," $ 1.
In a prosecution for violation of 3 Starr &
C. Ann. St. 1896, c. 140, pars. 6, 7, by knowing-

TREE WARDENS.
ly selling goods bearing a counterfeit label, cer-
tain evidence held admissible on the question Reimbursement for expenses, see "Towns," $ 1.
of guilty knowledge. -Vincendeau v. People
(IN.) 675.

TRESPASS.
In a prosecution for selling goods bearing a
counterfeit label, in violation of 3 Starr & c. Liability for injuries to trespasser, see "Negli-
Ann. St. 1896, c. 140, par. 8, indictment held

gence,

$ 1.
to sufficiently allege that the 'affidavit required To the person, see "Assault and Battery," § 1;
by statute was filed with the Secretary of State.

"False Imprisonment."
-Vincendeau v. People (Ill.) 675.
In a prosecution for violation of 3 Starr & C.

TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE.
Ann. St. 1896, c. 140, pars. 6, 7, by knowingly
selling goods bearing a counterfeit label, an al-

See "Ejectment."
legation in the indictment that the goods were
sold to a certain person held not to vary from

TRIAL.
the proof.Vincendeau v. People (111.) 675.

See “New Trial”; “Witnesses."
$ 2. Infringement and unfair competi- Contributory negligence of passenger as qucs-
tion.

tion for jury, see “Carriers," $ 8.
*Company held entitled to enjoin the use Estoppel by verdict without judgment, see "Judg-
by other parties of a trade-name.-- People v. Rose

ment," $ 7.
(Ill.) 42.

Harmless error in civil actions, see "Appeal
*An injunction restraining one from using a

and Error," 822, 25.
name as a trade-name held proper.-Cohen v. Harmless error in criminal prosecutions, see
Nagle (Mass.) 276.

"Criminal Law," $ 15.

Instructions as part of record on appeal, see
In a suit to restrain the use of a name as a “Appeal and Error," $8 9, 11.
trade-name, certain evidence held not to deprive Instructions as to assessment of damages, see
plaintiff of his right to the name.--Cohen v. "Damages," $ 3.
Nagle (Mass.) 276.

Instructions as to testamentary capacity, see
Certain use of a name held not to prevent one

“Wills," $ 2.
from adopting it as a trade-name.-Cohen v. Suits to try tax titles, see “Taxation,” $ 5.
Nagle (Mass.) 276.

Proceedings incident to trials.
Evidence in a suit to restrain the use of a See “Continuance."
name as a trade-name, showing the use of the Entry of judgment after trial of issues, see
name by others, held not to prevent plaintiff
from acquiring a right to the name.-Cohen v. Place of trial, see “Venue,” 2.

"Judgment,” s 2.
Nagle (Mass.) 276.

Right to trial by jury, see "Jury," § 1.
*In determining whether a manufacturer has Summoning and impaneling jury, see “Jury,"
a right to a trade-name, the question is whether $ 2.
a name, which had no recognized value, has
been so used by him as to give it a value' as a Trial of actions by or against particular classes
designation of articles of his manufacture.

of parties.
Cohen v. Nagle (Mass.) 276.

See “Carriers," $ 7: "Master and Servant," $8
*Where a manufacturer of an article has ac-

9, 10; "Municipal Corporations," $$ 11, 12;
quired a right of property in a name applied to

“Railroads," 8; "Street Railroads," $ 2.
the article of his manufacture, it is a fraud on Trial of particular civil actions or proceedings.
him for another to use the word in selling a See "Carriers," $$ 3, 7; “False Imprisonment.".
similar article.-Cohen v. Nagle (Mass.) 276.

$ 1; "Libel and Slander," $ 3; “Negligence.”

Condemnation proceedings, see “Eminent Do-
TRADE UNIONS.

main," $ 3.

For breach of contract, see “Contracts," $ 5.
Validity of contract with in general, see "Con- Tor death caused by act of servant, see "Master
tracts," $ 1.

and Servant," $ 10.

For death caused by operation of railroad, see
TRADING STAMPS.

"Railroads," § 8.

For injuries caused by operation of street rail-
Taxation of business of selling, giving, etc., For loss of or injury to cattle by carrier, see “Car-

road, see "Street Railroads," $ 2.
see "Taxation," § 1.

riers," $ 3.

For personal injuries, see “Carriers," $ 7;
TRANSCRIPTS.

"Master and Servant," $ 9; "Municipal Cor-

porations," 88 11. 12; "Negligence," $ 5;
Of record for purpose of review, see "Appeal "Street Railroads," $ 2.
and Error," 8 10; "Criminal Law," § 15. For price of goods sold, see “Sales," 8 5.

On insurance policy, see "Insurance," $$ 10, 11.

Probate proceedings, see “Wills," § 4.
TRANSFER OF CAUSES. Suits in equity, see "Equity," § 3.

To foreclose mechanic's lien, see "Mechanics'
Between courts of same state, see "Courts," $ 4. Liens," $ 5.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

Trial of criminal prosecutions.

*In passing on a motion for directed verdict,
See “Criminal Law," $8_6–12; "Homicide,” & the court cannot weigh the evidence, but must
2; “Receiving Stolen Goods."

concede the truth of that in favor of the party
For offenses relating to trade-marks, see "Trade against whom the motion is made.-B. Shon-
Marks and Trade-Names," $ 1.

inger Co. v. Mann (I11.) 354.
Summary trial, see "Criminal Law," $ 3.

Where, in an action on a building contract,

the evidence as to the date of the completion of
$ 1.

Course and conduct of trial in gen-| the work was conflicting, the question was for
eral.

the jury.-Fitzgerald v. Benner (III.) 709.
Certain remarks of the court held not preju-
dicial as intimating to the jury that defendant's

Where the court could set aside a verdict for
witness had willfully suppressed a letter in his plaintiff as not sustained by sufficient evidence,
possession while on the witness stand.-Fitz- the court may direct a verdict for defendant.---
gerald v. Benner (111.) 709.

Green v. Macy (Ind. App.) 264.

*In considering motion for peremptory in-
§ 2. Reception of evidence.

struction, the court must accept as true all the
*Where testatrix' testamentary capacity was facts and inferences against the party asking a
not in issue in a will contest, contestants held not protection of the verdict, and in case of con-
entitled to introduce evidence for the purpose of ficting evidence, excluding that favorable to
showing her mental condition.—Compher v. him.-Hall v. Terre Haute Electric Co. (Ind.
Browning (Ill.) 678.

App.) 334.
Rule as to the order of proof of the genuine the court" is bound to accept

as true all the

*On a motion for a peremptory instruction,
ness of a disputed written instrument stated.-
Baum v. Palmer (Ind. Sup.) 108.

facts the evidence tends to prove, and draw
*Where a party offers to prove a number of whom the motion is made, and reject all eri-

all inferences favorable to the party against
facts by a witness, as to a large portion of which dence favorable to the other.-Roberts v. Terre
facts the witness is incompetent to testify, it is Haute Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.
not error to exclude all the evidence.-Indian-
apolis & M. Rapid Transit Co. v. Hall (Ind. What is a reasonable time within which to
Sup.) 242.

perform an act is usually a question of fact,

though if the facts are undisputed or clearly es.
*An objection to a question made after the tablished it may be a question of law.-Ameri-
same has been answered is too late to be avail-
ing.-Swygart v. Willard (Ind. Sup.) 755.

can Window Glass Co. v. Indiana Natural Gas

& Oil Co. (Ind. App.) 1006.
Where witness was asked as to conversation

Affirmance by Appellate Division of judgment
with K. as to furnishing men to machinist,
objection to conversation with machinist held matter of law held too broad.—Levy k. James

on verdict dismissing complaint as based on a
properly overruled.- Diamond Block Coal Co. McCreery Realty Corp. (N. Y.) 1079.
v. Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.

*Where an answer was not responsive to a $ 5. Instructions to jury-Province of
question, the party objecting should move to

court and jury in general.
strike it out.--Diamond Block Coal Co. v.

An instruction that denunciation of witnesses
Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060,

by counsel should not influence the jury to dis-

regard the testimony if unimpeached is errone
On an issue of contributory negligence, de ous.—Chicago Union Traction Co. v. O'Brien
fendant is entitled to the benefit of such evi- (Ill.) 341.
dence as is relevant thereto which has been
introduced by plaintiff.-Roberts Terre

Instruction that the law presumed an unim.
Haute Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.

peached witness had testified truly held errone-

ous.—Chicago Union Traction Co. v. O'Brien
In an action for injuries to a child 12 years (Ill.) 341.
of age, plaintiff held entitled to prove the

Where in a will contest there was no claim of
child's mental capacity in rebuttal.-Roberts testamentary incapacity, it was not error for
v. Terre Haute Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.

the court to charge that testatrix' capacity was
*An offer of evidence held insufficient to ren- admitted, etc.—Compher v. Browning (111.) 678.
der the exclusion of the evidence erroneous. In an action to recover on a building contract,
Hart v. Brierley (Mass.) 286.

an instruction held not subject to criticism as
*An objection to evidence as irrelevant held embodying the assumption of a fact in issue.
improperly, overruled where its incompetency Fitzgerald v. Benner (111.) 709.
was manifest.–Gearty v. City of New York On the issue of mental capacity, an instruc-
(N. Y.) 12.

tion held not to invade the province of the jury
Where plaintiff offers at the same time testi- by the assumption that drunkenness was some
mony in chief and also in rebuttal, held error

evidence of insanity.-Swygart v. Willard (Ind.
to exclude the same and dismiss the complaint.

Sup.) 755.
-Auten v. Bennett (N. Y.) 609.

*An instruction which assumes the truth of

controverted facts is erroneous as invading the
§ 3. Arguments and conduct of counsel. province of the jury.-Beery v. Driver Iud.

*Counsel in argument can attack witnesses, Sup.) 967.
though unimpeached.-Chicago Union Traction

An instruction on the weight to be given the
Co. v. O'Brien (Ill.) 341.

testimony of witnesses held reversible error.-
The court having indicated an intention to Muncie Pulp Co. v. Keesling (Ind. Sup.) 1002
submit interrogatories requested by defendant,

An instruction as to what might be considered
it was not error to permit plaintiff's counsel to in weighing the testimony of different witnesses
read a comment thereon to the jury.-McIntyre held proper.-Indianapolis Northern Traction
v. Orner (Ind. Sup.) 750.

Co. v. Dunn (Ind. App.) 269.
4. Taking case or question from jury. An instruction in an action on a policy in-

*The question of the credibility of witness tes- suring a building against loss by fire and
tifying in contradiction of the others is for the lightning held properly refused because invading
jury.—Chicago Union Traction Co. v. O'Brien the province of the jury.-Home Ins, Co. f.
(IN.) 341.

Gagen (Ind. App.) 927.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

V.

V.

$ 6.

Form, requisites, and suffi -Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Pritchard (Ind.
ciency.

App.) 1070.
Instruction held not erroneous as submitting
a question of law to the jury; Chicago & J. quest that under all the evidence Fi was not a

In an action for injuries to a servant, a re-
Electric Ry. Co. v. Patton (li.) 381.

superintendent within Employer's Liability Act
Alleged error in an instruction by excluding (Rev. Laws, c. 106) held properly refused.
from the consideration of the jury, by the use Peterson v. Morgan Spring Co. (Mass.) 220.
of the word "testimony," documentary evidence
in the case, held harmless, the concluding

In an action for injuries to a servant, a re-
sentence of the instruction using the word "evi- quest that there was no evidence that defendant
dence" in place of “testimony". --Fitzgerald v. negligently failed to supply a suitable appliance
Benner (111.) 709.

for the prosecution of the work by plaintiff held

properly refused.--Peterson v. Morgan Spring
An instruction on weight of the testimony of Co. (Mass.) 220.
plaintiff held proper.-Hancheft v. Haas (Ill.)
845.

$ 8.

Requests or prayers.
* An instruction on the right of the jury to

Where one asks several instructions on
disregard the testimony of a witness held not particular subject held that he cannot com-
misleading.--Hancheft v. Haas (Ill.) 845. plain that the least favorable one only is given.

- National Enameling & Stamping Co. v. Mc-
*An instruction on the preponderance of evi- Corkle (I11.) 813.
dence held proper.-Hancheft v. Haas (Ill.)
845.

*It is not error to refuse instructions covered
Where, in an action on a note, the court in by those given.-Hancheft v. Haas (III.) 845.
structed fully as to the issue of estoppel raised It is not error for the court to refuse to
by the reply, plaintiff could not complain be- give an instruction substantially covered by the
cause that issue was not referred to in all the charge.--Springer v. Bricker (Ind. Sup.) 114.
other instructions.—Baum Palmer (Ind.
Sup.) 108.

A requested instruction relating to the jury,

determining the credibility of witnesses, held
Instruction on burden of proof held not bad properly refused in view of the charge given
for failing to refer to the sufficiency of circum- on the subject.—Home Ins. Co. v. Gagen (Ind.
stantial evidence to discharge the burden.- App.) 927.
New Castle Bridge Co. v. Doty (Ind. App.)
557.

*Superior court rule 48 does not prevent the

presiding justice from receiving and passing on
*Instruction that, as a general rule, witness the requests for instructions presented for the
interested in result will not be as fair in testi- first time after the closing argument, and allow-
mony as one not interested, held erroneous. ing an exception to the party aggrieved.-Rob-
Muncie, H. & Ft. W. Ry. Co. v. Ladd (Ind. App.) ertson v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.) 513.
790.
*Instruction that, when witnesses are other-sented after argument held in effect the giving

The receiving and refusing of instructions pre-
wise equally credible, greater weight should be of special leave to present the instructions at
given to those whose means of information that time.- Robertson v. Boston & N. St.
are superior, held erroneous.-Muncie. II. & Ry. Co. (Mass.) 513.
Ft. W. Ry. Co. v. Ladd (Ind. App.) 790.

Superior court rule 48, requiring instructions
In an action against a railway company for
injuries received by a passenger on a train of requested to be presented before argument only.
another company, an instruction held not open

means that requests presented after argument
to the objection that it gave undue prominence Robertson v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co. (Mass.)

cannot be entertained without leave of court.-
to one feature of the case.—Baltimore & 0. S.

513.
W. R. Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.

$ 9.

Construction and operation.
Applicability to pleadings and
evidence.

In an action on a building contract, an al-
*Where an instruction states a rule of law leged error in an instruction regarding the con-
which, though not incorrect, does not relate to struction of the contract held harmless, where
any fact in the case, it is improper. - Chicago nounced the construction contended for by the

four other instructions given for defendant an-
Union Traction Co. v, O'Brien (Ill.) 341.

latter.-Fitzgerald v. Benner (111.) 709.
In an action to recover on a building contract,
an instruction omitting the question of defend-

*Where the instructions as a whole were cor-
ant's damages, by way of set-off, resulting from rect it was immaterial that some particular in-
plaintiff's failure to complete the work within struction or detached portion thereof was ob-
the specified time, held not erroneous.-Fitz-jectionable.--Springer v. Bricker (Ind. Sup.)
gerald v. Benner (Ill.) 709.

114.
*A requested instruction held properly re-

*In charging a jury, the court is not required
fused, unless there is some evidence to which it to cover all questions in any one instruction.-
was pertinent.--Allyn v. Burns (Ind. App.) 636. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Higgs

(Ind. Sup.) 299.
In an action on a policy insuring a build-
ing against loss by fire and lightning, a request-

In action for injuries owing to plaintiff's
ed instruction held properly refused because horses having been frightened by defendant's
ignoring the facts.—Home Îns. Co. v. Gagen automobile, an instruction defining negligence
(Ind. App.) 927.

held not erroneous.—McIntyre v. Orner (Ind.
An instruction in an action against two rail-

Sup.) 750.
roads for injuries received by a passenger of

Instructions should be considered with ref-
one in a collision at crossing held not objection erence

to the charge as a whole. --Allyn v.
able as eliminating the question of proximate Burns (Ind. App.) 636.
cause. – Baltimore & 0. S. W. R. Co. v. Klees-
pies (Ind. App.) 1015.

Instruction that credit to be given witnesses

is a question for the jury held not to render
In an action against a carrier for ejection of harmless previous instruction as to credibility
a passenger, instructions held not objectionable of witness interested in suit.Muncie, H. & Ft.
as not applicable to the pleadings and evidence. ' W. Ry. Co. v. Ladd (Ind. App.) 790.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

$ 10. Custody, conduct, and deliberations | $ 1. Actions.
of jury.

*The measure of damages for the conversion
* Error in permitting the jury to take the dece of goods is the fair market value thereof at the
laration into the jury room on their retire- date of the conversion.-Hart v. Brierley
ment is not reversible.—Hancheft v. Haas (Mass.) 286.
(III.) 845.

*In an action for conversion, evidence that
8 11. Verdict.

plaintiff could buy the goods for less than the
Where a motion for a venire de novo only ap- market price held incompetent to reduce the
plied to the general verdict, no question was

amount of defendant's liability.-Hart v. Brier-
raised concerning the finding of the jury in an- ley (Mass.) 286.
swer to a special interrogatory.-Spaulding v.
Mott (Ind. Sup.) 620.

TRUSTEE PROCESS.
*A motion for a venire de novo will not be
sustained unless the verdict, whether general or

See "Garnishment.”
special, is so defective and uncertain that no
judgment can be rendered on it.-Spaulding v.

TRUSTS.
Mott (Ind. Sup.) 620.

Administration of trust funds by municipality,
*A general verdict in favor of plaintiff is a
finding against defendant upon the issuable Charitable trusts, see "Charities."

see "Municipal Corporations," $ 13.
facts, and is supported, as against special find-Creation by will, see “Wills," $ 5.
ings,' by every inference which may be drawn Right of beneficiary to maintain bill for parti-
from the evidence.—Union Traction Co. v. Sul-

tion, see “Partition," $ 1.
livan (Ind. App.) 116.

Trust deeds, see "Chattel Mortgages" ; "Wort-
Where special findings followed the theory of gages."
the complaint, and substantially found all the
material facts disclosed by the evidence, defend-8 .. Creation, existence, and validity.
ants held not entitled to a venire de novo for in question under a resulting trust in favor of

Defendant held the owner of certain property
alleged indefiniteness of such findings.Case v. complainants, as provided by Burns Ann. St.
Collins (Ind. App.) 781.

1901, 8 3398.-Catterson v. Hall (Ind. App.)
*A general verdict will not be overthrown 889.
by special findings, unless they are so antago-
nistic that both cannot stand. - Lindley v. Kemp tention of insured to create a trust in the pro-

*Parol evidence held admissible to show the in-
(Ind. App.) 798.

ceeds of the certificate.- Mee v. Fay (Jass.)
*Facts which might have been proven under 229.
the issues will be regarded as proven, if neces-
sary to avoid a conflict between the special find- $ 2. Construction and operation.
ings and general verdict.—Lindley v. Kemp

Certain will and deed held to create an active
(Ind. App.) 798.

trust which was not executed under the statue
In an action on a note executed by husband legal estate.—Mason v. Mason (I11.) 692.

of uses, and under which the beneficiary took no
and wife, who were partners, prior to the hus-
band's death, answers to interrogatories held $ 3. Management and disposal of trust
not in irreconcilable conflict with the general

property.
verdict against her.---Anderson v. Citizens' Nat. Beneficiary under trust held not entitled to
Bank (Ind. App.) 811.

have a sale made by his trustee.---Jason F.
Answers to special interrogatories held not Mason (111.) 692.
to conflict with the general verdict on favor In determining whether majority of testator's
of plaintiff, so as to require judgment for de- children signed request for trustee to sell
fendant.-Catterson v. Hall (Ind. App.) 889. land, neither the trustee nor the purchaser,

*Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 8 556, all the though, both children, should be counted. -
facts specially found pertinent to the issue Fredrick v. Fredrick (III.) 856.
must be construed as a whole to be incon *Where a large number of beneficiaries are
sistent with the general verdict in order to interested in trust property, the trustee should
control it.-Catterson v. Hall (Ind. App.) 889. not sell the same without notice to all the par-

*As concerns general verdicts, a venire de ties in interest.-Fredrick v. Fredrick (II.)
novo reaches only such defects as are apparent Where the proceeds of a certificate of insurance
on the face of the record.--Douglas v. Indianap- is held under a valid trust, the beneficiaris are
olis & N. W. Traction Co. (Ind. App.) 892. not entitled to the possession thereof.-liee .
In an action for injuries to a passenger,

Fay (Mass.) 229.
general verdict held not necessarily inconsistent 8 4. Accounting and compensation of
with answers to interrogatories, nor outside

trustee.
the issues.-Cincinnati, I. & W. Ry. Co. v. *Trustees under a will held only entitled to
Bravard (Ind. App.) 899.

such compensacion as the law itself would
It is within the discretionary power of the allow or the court should determine to be rea-
trial court to question the jury as to the grounds sonable.-Complier v. Browning (III.) 678.
of their general verdict, and to inquire if they
had determined certain issues in the case.-Hart 5. Establishment and enforcement of

trust.
v. Brierley (Mass.) 286.

A family settlement held to create a trust of
8 12. Trial by court.

the surplus income of certain land, which plain-
*A judgment unsupported by any finding of tiffs were entitled to enforce against the trus.
fact must be reversed.—Dougherty v. Lion tee's wife, who took such income with notjie.
Fire Ins. Co., Limited, of London (N. Y.) 4. and repudiated the trust.–Case v. Collins (Ind.

App.) 781.
TROVER AND CONVERSION.

*Plaintiffs held entitled to follow the proceeds

of a bank deposit left by their mother on her
Conclusiveness of verdict, see "Judgment," $ 7. death, and received and invested in real estate
Conversion by broker, see “Brokers," $ 1. by their father in his own name in violation
Conversion by warehousemen, see "Warehouse- of plaintiffs' rights.-Case V. Collins (Ind.
men."

App.) 781.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.