Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Mirmy

[ocr errors]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
1. A magistrate's certificate of acknowledgment of a married woman is suf-

ficient, if it show a substantial compliance with the statute. Barton's

Lessee v. The Heirs of Morris, 408..
2. The second section of the act passed January 29, 1833, amendatory of

the act providing for the acknowledgment of deeds, &c., is constitutional

and of binding force, notwithstanding its retrospective operation. Ibid.
3. Under the judgment and execution law of 1805, the sheriff might ac-

knowledge a deed for real estate sold, before a justice of the peace.

Heighway v. Pendleton, 735.
ACTION.
1. Assumpsit will lie to recover of a bailee for hire, the value of goods de-

livered to him and which he has converted to his own use. Barker v.
... Cory, 9....

.

.. .
2. Debt may be maintained upon a bond for the redelivery of property under

the act authorizing the appraisal of personal property levied on execu-

tion. Darling et al. v, Peck et al., 65.
3. Such suit may be brought though the breach of the bond occured after

the expiration of that act. Ibid.
4. The common law remedy remains, though the statutory remedy is gone.
.. lbid. .
5. A special action on the case lies by a mortgagee, after condition broken,

against a third person, who commits an injury to fixtures on the pre-
mises, by which his security is diminished, and he sustains an actual

loss. Allison v. McCune, 726.
6. Actual possession of the mortgaged premises by the plaintiff is not ne-

cessary to entitle him to the action. Ibid.
· See APPEAL BOND. LOST NEGOTIABLE PAPER.
ADVERTISEMENT.
If a court renders judgment in attachment without publication of notice as

the statute requires, such judgment is not void, and cannot be impeached
collaterally. Paine's Lessee v. Mooreland, 435. .

Appeal. Appeal Bond. Assumpsit. Attachment.

APPEAL.
1. Cases appealed from justices of the peace, previous to the passage of the

act of March 4th, 1845, are not subject to its provisions in the taxation

of costs. Barker v. Cory, 9.
2. A case in divorce, or for divorce and alimony, cannot be appealed from

the Common Pleas to the Supreme Court. Laughery v. Laughery et al.

404.
3. But if in such case a third person is made defendant, he may appeal so

much of the case as affects his interest. Ibid.
4. It is error in the Court of Common Pleas to dismiss an appeal from a jus-

tice of the peace, for the reason that his transcript does not state the

form of action. Humiston et al. v. Anderson's Administrator, 556.
APPEAL BOND.
In case of an apeal from the Court of Common Pleas to the Supreme Court,

if the appellant, before judgment in the Supreme Court, become a cer-
tificated bankrupt, and his assignee be permitted under the bankrupt
law to prosecute in his stead, and a decree for costs be rendered in faror
of the appellee, to be charged upon the assets of the bankrupt in the
hands of the assignee, and a general execution be issued against the
bankrupt and returned nulla bona, an action will not lie against the
sureties in the appeal bond. Sigler et al. v. Shehy et al. 471.

ASSUMPSIT.

See Action, 1.

ATTACHMENT.
1. A person executing a defective deed for the conveyance of land, which

deed has not been recorded, has an interest in the land capable of being

attached. Paine's Lessee v. Mooreland, 435.
2. If attached and sold as the property of the vendor, a purchaser, without

notice of the equity, takes a good title as an innocent purchaser without

notice. Ibid.
3. The court acquires jurisdiction in attachment, by the issuing of process

predicated upon the requisite affidavit, and the attaching of the proper-
ty; and if after thus acquiring jurisdiction the court proceed to render
judgment without the publication of notice, such judgment is not void,
and cannot be impeached collaterally, but must be reversed upon writ of

error. Ibid.
4. Whether a fieri facias can issue upon a judgment in attachment, in the

first instance; quere. Ibid.

Attestation. Attorney and Client. Bailment. Bank Notes. Banks and Banking. Bankruptcy.

ATTESTATION.
1. The attestation of a deed, that the same was “sealed and delivered” in

the presence of the subscribing witnesses is sufficient. Lessee of Fos-

dick v. Risk, 84.
. 2. Where a mortgage, executed in 1798, was attested by only one witness,

and scire facias has been issued on the mortgage, and judgment ren-
dered, and that judgment afterwards revived without objection to the
mortgage because of its having but one witness, the revived judgment
cannot, because of that defect, be impeached in any way. Heighway v.

Pendleton, 735.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
Service of citation in error on the attorney, after the death of the party,

is invalid. Cisna's Administrator v. Beach, 300.
BAILMENT.
1. If goods or chattels are delivered to a bailee for hire, and he converts them

to his own use, assumpsit will lie to recover their value. Barker v.

Cory, 9. -
BANK NOTES.

See PROMISSORY Notes.
BANKS AND BANKING.
1. The existence of a bank whose paper is alledged to have been counter-

feited, may be proved by reputation. Reed v. The State, 217.
2. The Bank of Circle ville having done all the law required, previous to

the appointment of a commissioner by the Governor to examine its
vaults, which the Governor neglected to do, a person who has done bu-
siness with it as a bank, and admitted its existence by the receipt of its
funds, cannot, in a suit against himself, brought by the Receivers of the
Bank, question the legality of its organization. Receivers of Bank of

Circleville v. Renick et al., 322.
BANKRUPTCY.
1. If A deliver money to B, which he promises to pay to C, on the note of

A, it is not a debt contracted in a fiduciary capacity, and is not within

the bankrupt law of the United States. Bissell v. Couchaine, 58.
2. In case of an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas to the Supreme

Court, if the appellant, before judgment in the Supreme Court, become
a certificated bankrupt, and his assignee be permitted under the bank-
rupt law to prosecute in his stead, and a decree for costs be rendered
in favor of the appellee, to be charged upon the assets of the bankrupt
in the hands of the assignee, and a general execution be issued against

...

Bequest. Bill of Particulars. · Bill of Review. Boats. Bond. Canals.

BANKRUPTCY-Continued.

the bankrupt, and returned nulla bona, an action will not lie against

the sureties in the appeal bond. · Sigler et al. v. Shehy et al., 471.
BEQUEST.

See WILL, 3, 4, 5. ..
BILL OF PARTICULARS.
It is error in the common pleas to dismiss an appeal from a justice of the
in peace, for the reason that he has omitted to send up a bill of particulars.

· Humiston et al. v. Anderson's Administrator, 556.
BILL OF REVIEW.
1. On bill of review, where the facts found are stated in the decree, the

court will not look into the proof to see whether it sustained the decree.

Stevens v. Hey et al., 313.
2. The practice is otherwise where the facts are not embodied in the de-

· cree. Ibid.
3. A decree will not be reviewed for new matter if it be merely cumulative

evidence, nor unless it appear that such new matter could not have
been used upon the former hearing, by the use of ordinary diligence.
Ibid.

BOATS.
Under the act of Feb. 26, 1840, providing for proceedings against Steam.

boats and other water craft by name, where a person has engaged to
build and deliver a boat at a future day, at a specified price, and has
delivered the boat in pursuance of such agreement, he cannot after-
wards proceed against her, in the possession of a third person, to recover
for “materials, supplies and labor," 'expended in building the same.

Canal Boat Etna v. Treat, 585.
BOND.
1. The penalty of an official bond cannot be inserted by a third person, after

the execution by the obligor, in his absence, without an express author-
ity, under his hand and seal. Ohio, use of Rosett et al., v. Boring et

al., 507.
2. A bond filed in a case in error, to be valid either as a statutory or a com-

mon law bond, or to operate as a supersedeas, must be filed before the
supreme court obtains complete jurisdiction of the writ of error. Bay.
less v. Belmont Bank of St. Clairsville, 606.

See Prison Bounds Bond.
CANALS.

See OFFICE and OFFICER, 2, 3, 4.

Capias ad satisfaciendum. Case. Certiorari. Chancery.

CAPIAS AD SATISFACIENDUM.

... See Prison Bounds Bond, 1, 2.
CASE." .

See Fraud and FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, 3, 8, 9, 10. NUISANCE,

MORTGAGE, 5, 6. Pleas and PLEADING, 8, 9... .
CERTIORARI.

See Practice, 38.
CHANCERY.
1. Where a mortgage has been given to a person to indemnify him against

luss or damage as indorser for the mortgagor, and the mortgagee has
been sued to judgment on such indorsement; under a bill in chancery

brought by others having liens upon the land mortgaged, to subject the
: same to sale, in which all parties interested are before the court, such
mortgagee has a right to require that the avails of the sale be applied
in discharge of the judgment against him, though he has not actual-
ly paid the money. : Kramer et al. v. F. & M. Bank of Steuben-

ville, 253.
2. A court of chancery, on a bill of review, will examine the proof taken in

the original case, where the facts found are not stated in the decree.
.. Stevens v. Hey et al. 313.
3. Otherwise where the facts are embodied in the decree. Ibid.
4. A decree will not be reviewed for new matter when the new matter is

merely cumulative evidence, and where it does not appear that the tes-
timony sought could not have been obtained on the former hearing by

the use of ordinary diligence. Ibid.
5. A court of chancery has not jurisdiction for the purpose of establishing

a spoliated will. Morningstar et al. v. Selby et al., 345.
6. Jurisdiction is in the Court of Common Pleas, as a probate court. Ibid.
7. Where judgment has been obtained against principal and surety, and the

principal is insolvent, a court of chancery will entertain jurisdiction of a
suit brought by the surety for the purpose of reaching credits of the
principal and appropriating them in payment of the judgment, although

the surety has not paid the money. McConnell v. Scott et al., 401.
8. If a bill in chancery be filed against nonresidents, in the county where

the land lies; to enforce a specific performance of a contract for the con-
veyance of the same, and for an account for money expended and labor
performed in improving the land, and the court render a decree merely
for the payment of money, the decree, if erroneous, can only be correc-
ted by bill of review, and cannot be impeached collaterally, in an action
of ejectment. Boswell's Lessee v. Sharp et al., 447.

« PreviousContinue »