2. Every presumption is indulged in favor CREDITORS. of the legal existence of a corporation, See CHANCERY, 14. EXECUTORS AND ADMIN- COSTS. See INFANTS, 3. Ibid. COURTS, CIRCUIT. See JURISDICTION, 1. PRACTICE, 3. COURTS, PROBATE. COURT, SUPREME. COVENANT. See PLEADING, 13. ISTRATORS, 11, 12. FRAUDULENT CONVEY- When a debtor gives to his creditor collate- 488 3. The plaintiff petitioned the commission- DECEDENTS' ESTATES. See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 1. Merchants of another state, through A. and B., who were in the warehouse business in this state, purchased a certain amount of pork. The vendors gave written memoranda of the sales, and receipts for the money paid, and A. and B. agreed, in writing, to deliver said pork at Toledo to the order of said merchants as soon as navigation opened. Held, that these documents transferred the possession and property of the pork to the purchasers. Held, also, that these documents, being indorsed and delivered to a merchant in New York in consideration of advances of money in the usual course of trade, transferred to him the legal possession of the property and made him an actual purchaser to the extent of his advances.Pierce v. Gibson, 408 Held, also, that an attachment issued subsequently to said transfer to said merchant, at the instance of a supposed creditor of the original purchasers, could not be maintained; and the mere fact that the attachment issued, was no evidence of indebtedness to the attachment-plaintiff. 3. Ibid. The statute of frauds does not require a delivery of goods sold where the contract is in writing, or where the purchase-money, or a part of it, is paid. Ibid. DEMAND. INTEREST, 2. The commissioners of Randolph county made an order directing the county agent to lay off a certain portion of the public ground belonging to said county, in the town of Winchester, into lots, and advertise and sell them to the highest bidders. The plaintiff and others remonstrated, alleging they were the owners of lots adjacent to said ground; that they had purchased said lots with the expectation of See AGENT, 1, 3. CONTRACT, 7. DOWER, 6. enjoying the free use of said ground as a commons for which it was intended; and that the right to the use thereof was an incorporeal hereditament, &c. The Court refused to rescind the order of sale. The land on which the town is situated was deeded to the county agent for the use of the county. The original town plat was lost, but the county agent who had held that appointment since the organization of the county, testified that he never was directed to lay off said ground as a public commons, and it was not done on the original plat, which was lost. The ground was never used for any other purposes Assumpsit for money had and received. In 291 1. An avowry for rent due need not show 2. Bill in chancery by the complainant 3. 4. Proof that by a devise to a parent the tes- Ibid. DISORDERLY GROCERY. Indictment charging that the defendant on, &c., at, &c., did then and there erect, keep, &c., a certain tippling-house, or place wherein spirituous and intoxicating liquors were sold by the defendant, without license, to be drunk in and about the said tippling-house, which said tipplinghouse, during all the time aforesaid, was then and there kept by the defendant in a disorderly manner, &c., contrary to the form of the statute, &c. Held, that the indictment was good.-The State v. Zim DISTRIBUTION. See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 2. DIVORCES. See DOWER, 1.7HUSBAND AND WIFE. Application for divorce and alimony. The bill alleged a mariage in Virginia. The answer denies any malage. General reputation of marriage was proved. Held, that as there was no statute of Virginia on the subject in evidence, the common law will be presumed to have been in force there, and the marriage valid.-Trimble v. Trimble, DOWER. 76 MAR See INJUNCTION, 6. JUDGMENT, 1. 1. When divorce has been granted on ac- 233 By the act of January 28, 1847, a demand of dower of infants is unnecessary.—McCormick et al. v. Taylor, 336 3. An infant can assign dower at common law, but if he so assigns, he will be protected against the consequences of excessive assignment, and may have his writ of admeasurement of dower. Ibid. A writ of admeasurement of dower is for the benefit of the infant. The widow is bound by her acceptance. Ibid. 6. The R. S. of 1843 require that a petition for dower should allege that the dower had been demanded.-Boyers v. Newbanks et ux., 388 7. Dower may be assigned by parol; nothing is required but to ascertain the widow's share, and when this is done and she has entered, the freehold rests in her, without livery of seizin or writing. Ibid. 8. A guardian can assign dower. Ibid. 9. The statute provides, that where a provision is made for the widow in lieu of dower in her deceased husband's will, she shall elect between such provision and dower, and shall not take both; and that where the will is not explicit as to whether such provision is intended to be in lieu of dower, it shall be presumed to be so intended.-Smith v. Baldwin et al., 404 10. A. sold a tract of land to B. The latter paid a portion of the purchase-money, gave his note for the balance, and took a bond conditioned that a deed should be made when all the purchase-money was paid. B. took possession, and died leaving heirs. The purchase-money being unpaid, A. filed his bill to enforce payment by a sale of the land; a decree was rendered and the land sold to C. A. married prior to the said sale to C. and died. Held, that his widow was not entitled to dower in said land.-Kintner v. McRae, 453 DRUNKENNESS. See RECOGNIZANCE, 2. E. EJECTMENT. See EVIDENCE, 14. MESNE PROFITS. NOTICE TO NON-RESIDENTS. 1. As to evidence of disputed boundary in an action of ejectment, after the defendant had confessed himself in possession of the premises, see Doe d. Applegate v. Hall, 24 2. Ejectment brought by the lessee of A. in March, 1848. A. was in possession of, and claiming title to, the land in 1845. The defendants relied on the purchase of the land at sheriff's sale. They proved a judgment rendered in 1844 in favor of B. against A. and C.; that a venditioni exponas issued in 1846, and under it the land was sold to the defendants, the rents and profits having first been offered for sale without effect. They also produced the sheriff's deed, made to them in 1846. Held, that A.'s prior possession in 1845 was sufficient, prima facie, to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and that it was necessary, for the defendants to maintain their defence, to show that the sheriff was authorized to make the sale.-Morss et al. v. Doe d. O'Neal, 65 3. Ejectment. The defendant claimed title under a purchase at sheriff's sale, and proved a judgment rendered in 1840, in the Cass Circuit Court, in favor of A. against B.; an entry made by C., the lessor, as replevin-bail, in 1841; and a revival of the judgment in 1845 in favor of the administrator of A. He also proved the issuing of a venditioni exponas in 1845; that, under it, he purchased the land in 1846, the rents and profits having first been offered for sale without effect. He also produced the sheriff's deed to him. Held, that this evidence was sufficient, prima facie, to authorize a verdict in the defendant's favor. Roe d. Weirick v. Ross, 99 4. 5. The land sold by the sheriff was proved to be worth 1,200 dollars. The sum bid and paid for it by the defendant, was 111 dollars. Held, that this inadequacy of price was not in itself sufficient to avoid the sale. Ibid. Where the plaintiff in ejectment traces title to a person in possession under a deed, and to the same source from which the defendant derives title, such plaintiff need not show a patent from the United States to sustain his title.-Peirson et al. v. Doe d. Turner et al., 123 The duties of the board of canvassers and the clerk in making out the statement of the votes given, the persons elected, &c., are ministerial. They are not to consider any question relative to the validity of the election held, but to cast up the votes given for each person from the proper election documents, and to declare the person who, upon the face of those documents, appears to have received the highest number of votes given, duly elected to the office voted for.-Brower v. O'Brien, 423 EQUITY. See CHANCERY. INJUNCTION. ERROR. See CONTRACT, 5. EVIDENCE, 2. EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 9. PRACTICE, 2. EVIDENCE. See AGENT, 5, 6. ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER. BANKS, 2. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, 1, 4. EJECTMENT, 8. EXCEPTIONS. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY, 2. LIMITATIONS, 1, 2. MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS, 1, 2. MURDER, 4. NOTES PROMISSORY, 15. NOTICE TO NON-RESIDENTS. RECOGNIZANCE, 5. SCIRE FACIAS, 1. SET-OFF, 1. VARIANCE, 1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 15. WHITE WATER VALLEY CANAL Co. 1. The evidence is usually closed with the plaintiff's rebutting testimony. If the defendent would introduce further testimony he must show special cause.-Slade et al. v. The State ex. rel. McClaskey et al., 33 2. Where evidence is objected to, and the particular reasons of objection are not pointed out to the Court at the time, and shown by the record, the reception of the evidence cannot be assigned for error.Carter v. Hanna, 45 5. This statement in a deposition was suppressed: "I was made their agent by an instrument of writing, in which instrument Wm. Caldwell conveyed the machine to me as agent for Lewis and Daily, for their sole benefit, and which gave me the power to sell, use, or convey away the said machine for the use of Lewis and Daily, and to carry out the design of said instrument." The witness was not called on to produce the instrument, nor was it produced, or its absence accounted for. Under such circumstances parol evidence of the contents of the instrument could not be given.-Hotchkiss v. Daily, 117 6. Copies of deeds from the recorder's office, under the R. S. of 1843, are admissible as original evidence.-Pierson et al. v. Doe d. Turner et al., 123 7. Where evidence is objected to, the record must show that the cause of objection was pointed out at the time, or the evidence will be considered as not having been objected to.-Atkins et al. v. Holmes et ux., 197 8. Unless all the evidence introduced in the cause is before the Supreme Court in the transcript, the judgment of the Court below will be affirmed.-Elder et al. v. Robins et. al., 210 11. Debt before a justice by W. and O., assignees of P. upon a promissory note made by S. to P. Pleas, no consideration and fraud. In the Circuit Court the plaintiff in error proved that a person who represented himself as an agent of P. called upon S. and demanded compensation for an infringement of the patent right of a mill wheel; that S. at first refused to pay anything, saying that he had paid the person who put up the wheel for the right; that the agent replied that the man who put up the wheel had no right to do so; that if S. refused to pay, he would forthwith take out an execution and compel him to pay a larger sum than he then demanded; that the agent also told S. that he had a power of attorney from the patentee; and that the Supreme Court had decided that the patentee had the power to collect damages where there had been an infrigement of the patent; that he then proceeded and read to S. two pages to that effect; that S. then said if there was no other alternative than to pay a second time for the use of his wheel, he supposed he must do so, and thereupon gave his note for 25 dollars, which is the same sued upon. This was all the proof offered. Held, that the Court properly sustained a demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff in error.-Stanley v. White et al., 589 12. The Court permitted the state to prove that it was the popular opinion that ergot would produce abortion. The evidence showed that ergot was administered to the deceased shortly before her death. |
Get this book in print