Evening Republican, Volume 23, Number 155, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 June 1920 — CIRCUIT COURT FINDING AFFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT [ARTICLE]

CIRCUIT COURT FINDING AFFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT

The Indiana supreme court has affirmed the decision of an important case tried by Judge C. W. Hanley in the Jasper circuit court. Minutes of the finding of the higher court are given below: Accounting—Pleas in Abatement —Venue. 10383. Robert Caterwood vs. Cornelia Caterwood et al. Jasper C. . Affirmed. Nichols, J. (1) This is a suit by the appellees for partition and an accounting in regard to an 800-acre farm in Benton county. The appellant obtained an injunction in a Chicago court against the prosecution of the suit for accounting, all of the parties being residents of Chicago, but the appellate court of Illinois reversed this judgment after partition had been made of the lands and before the cause was finally finished. Thereafter by changes of venue the cause reached the court below. This court had jurisdiction of the suit regardless of the fact that a suit involving the accounting was pending in a court in Chicago, as a similar suit in another state is not a cause for abatement. (2) The fact that the Benton circuit court had heard and determined the matter of partition did not prevent the granting of a change of venue, especially where the appellant was the one who asked for the change. (3) The appellant’s answer admits numerous demands for an accounting, so that the omission of such fact from the findings is not material. (4) It appearing that appellant in the management of the farm was acting as trustee, he can put no reliance upon the tenancy of a co-tenant to make the occupier liable for rentals. (5) The record showing that the term was extended to complete this cause, the judgment was not rendered in vacation. (6) The Illinois litigation being for the benefit of the appellant and for the benefit of the estate, appellant was not entitled to reimbursement of such costs out of the income from the farm. Two local attorneys were engaged in this case. Attorney Moses Leopold represented the plaintiff and Attorney G. A. Williams the defense.