Jasper County Democrat, Volume 23, Number 27, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 June 1920 — COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF [ARTICLE]

COURT HOUSE NEWS IN BRIEF

Interesting Paragraphs From the Various Departments OF JASPER COUNTY CAPITOL Legal Newi Epitomized— Together With Other Notes Gathered by Us From the Various County Offices. The regular July meeting of the county commissioners will convene next Monday. Sheriff and Mrs. T. D. Woodworth returned home Monday afternoon from a 10 days’ visit with Mr. and Mrs. Newt Pumiphrey near Columbia City. Attorney Frank Davis of Brook has been in Rensselaer since Saturday to be near his daughter. Miss Louise Davis, who is a patient at the county hospital. The county board of review which has been in session for the past three weeks, will complete its session Saturday. Very few changes have been made in the assessments, at least no material changes. In the recent school enumeration (not including Lake county) Starke made the best showing of any of our neighboring counties, a gain of 53. Benton county lost 14; Jasper 64; Newton 66; Porter 47; Pulaski 136, and White 103.

The Catherwood vs. Catherwood et al lawsuit, taken to the supreme court about a year ago from the Jasper circuit court on appeal of Robert Catherwood, was affirmed Friday. The suit grew out of an accounting filed by appellant who was in charge of handling an 80-0-acre farm in Benton county belonging to the Catherwood estate. The syllabus of the decision of the higher court follows: •_ (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 erititled to reimbursement.