covenantee, acquired by the subsequent conveyances, vesting in him
the naked legal title. Barton's Lessee v. The Heirs of Morris, 408.
2. A party to a fraudulent conveyance cannot set up his fraud to avoid the
conveyance, nor can his grantee or his heir be heard to aver the exist-
ence of such fraud, to prevent the operation of the doctrine of estoppel.
Ibid.
1. Under the act authorizing the appraisal of personal property levied on ex-
ecution, where a bond has been given for its redelivery, the property
once offered for sale and a vendi. issued, parol proof may be given of
the demand of other property, than that named in the writ, of the ex-
ecution debtor. Darling et al. v. Peck et al. 65.
2. On the trial of a person charged with passing counterfeit bank notes, it
is competent to prove that he has passed other counterfeit paper, with-
out producing such paper in court, if it be out of the jurisdiction of the
court. Reed v. The State, 217.
3. The existence of a bank whose paper is alledged to have been counter-
feited may be proved by reputation. Ibid.
4. For the purpose of proving a bargain and sale, the declarations of the
parties thereto, at the time, are a part of the res gesta, and competent
evidence for the accused to rebut the inference of guilt arising from the
possession of stolen property. Leggett v. The State, 283.
5. Sworn copies of estimates from the office of the Resident Engineer, are
competent evidence in an action against a contractor by a subcontrac-
tor, to recover for work done on the public works, for the purpose of
ascertaining the value of the work done. Lyon et al. v. McCadden,
551.
6. On an indictment for forgery, evidence which tends to prove that the in-
strument forged could not in any event injure any one, is admissable
to go to the jury. Barnum v. The State, 723.
Where, in 1808, in proceedings instituted upon a mortgage executed in
1798, by scire facias, the plaintiff recovered a judgment, the form of the
journal entry of the judgment being "that the plaintiff recover his debt
and damages, and that a levari facias issue therefor," such judgment
could be reduced to certainty by reference to the mortgage, and if
the execution issued for the proper amount, the proceedings under
such execution will be sustained. Heighway v. Pendleton, 735.
Executors and Administrators. Feme Covert. Foreign Courts. Forgery.
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
1. If notes be delivered to an executor, to indemnify the estate against a lia-
bility where the testator was a surety, such notes, and the money col-
lected on them, are not the property of the estate, and the estate is not
liable for the misconduct of such executor, in respect to such notes and
money. Arbuckle's Executors v. Tracy's Administrators, 432.
2. Under such circumstances the executor is a trustee for the person deliv-
ering the notes, and he alone is responsible for a faithful application
of the money collected. Ibid.
3. An administrator cannot maintain an action of trover to recover the value
of goods transferred by his intestate, to defraud his creditors. Benja
min v. Le Buron's Administrator, 517.
4. Under the law of 1805, when there had been a breach of the condition
of a mortgage, and where the mortgagor was dead, the scire facias might
be directed to and served upon the administrator only; the equity of re-
demption does not, in such case, descend to the heir, but may be settled
or compounded by the administrator. Heighway v. Pendleton, 735.
See JUDICIAL SALE, 8, 9.
1. If a wife join with her husband in the commission of a crime less than
murder, she is presumed to act under the coercion of her husband, and
in law is not guilty. Davis et al. v. The State, 72.
1. A judgment rendered in the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania,
when the service is upon land only, and the defendant never within that
State, is not prima facie evidence of debt in Ohio. Arndt v. Arndt, 33.
2. Such judgment binds the property seized, but beyond this is a nullity.—
Ibid.
3. The same faith, credit and effect will be given here, to a judgment pro-
nounced in Pennsylvania, that it has by law or usage there. Ibid.
1. The fraudulent alteration of a settlement of a book account, with intent to
defraud A, by including, thus falsely, within the terms of the settle-
ment, a claim of A against B, which accrued after the settlement was
in fact made, is forgery. Barnum v. The State, 717.
2. That such claim existed may be proved, though there be no book of origin-
al entries, and no book account in which the items of such claim were
charged. Ibid.
Fraud and Fraudulent Conveyance.
3. To constitute forgery, the instrument must be such, when forged, that it
does or may tend to prejudice the rights of another. Ibid.
4. The intent to defraud some one must be averred, and it must be proved
as laid. Ibid.
5. Evidence which tends to prove that the forged instrument could not, under
any state of circumstances, prejudice the rights of any one, is compe-
tent to go to the jury. Ibid.
FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.
1. A voluntary conveyance by a parent to a child, made in good faith, by
way of advancement, will be sustained, although the parent may have
been indebted at the time, provided the property left in the parent is
clearly and abundantly sufficient to satisfy all subsisting debts. Miller
et al. v. Wilson et al., 108.
2. A party to a fraudulent conveyance cannot set up his fraud to avoid the
conveyance, nor can his grantee or his heir be heard to aver the exist-
ence of such fraud, to prevent the operation of the doctrine of estoppel.
Barton's Lessee v. The Heirs of Morris, 408.
3. A special action on the case may be sustained against a debtor, for
fraudulently representing himself insolvent, and thereby inducing his
creditor to discharge a promissory note for less than its value. Ed-
wards v. Owen, 500.
4. Proof of general representations made at the same time to others by which
they were defrauded, may be given in evidence to show the intention
of the debtor in making the false representations complained of. Ibid.
5. But it is error to instruct a jury that proof of false and fraudulent repre-
sentations thus made to other creditors, would sustain a declaration
counting upon representations made directly to the plaintiff. Ibid.
6. An administrator cannot maintain an action of trover to recover the value
of goods transferred by his intestate to defraud his creditors. Benja-
min v. Le Baron's Administrator, 517.
7. A court of chancery will not set aside a conveyance upon allegations of
fraud, unless the charges are clearly and satisfactorily sustained by
proof. Christmas et al. v. Spink et al., 600.
8. A special action on the case may be maintained for a fraud resulting in
damage, and it is no defence that the fraudulent acts were done in the
capacity of corporators. Bartholomew v. Bently et al., 659.
9. If the design be to defraud the public generally, any one suffering injury
thereby may maintain his action. Ibid.
Frauds and Perjuries, Statute of. Guardian and Ward. Husband and wife. Infancy. Judgment.
FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE—Continued.
10. The declaration should charge the fraudulent intent in positive terms,
and not leave it to be inferred from the falsity of the facts stated in the
declaration. Ibid.
FRAUDS AND PERJURIES, STATUTE OF.
See VENDOR And Vendee, 4, 5.
If a guardian convert land scrip, receivable at the land office in the purchase
of public lands, into money, by investing it in land for himself and
others, and accounting with his wards for the scrip, with interest from
the time of the investment, he cannot, if he acted in good faith in the
transaction, be charged as a trustee of the land purchased, or compelled
to account for the profits growing out of the investment. Davies et al.
v. Lowrey et al., 655.
See CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, 1.
1. When an infant conveys land, and after his arrival at full age conveys the
same land to a third person, such subsequent conveyance is a disaffirm-
ance of the former conveyance. Cresinger v. Lessee of Welch, 156.
2. Mere lapse of time after he arrives at full age, will not amount to a con-
firmation, unless after twenty-one years; but lapse of time for a less
period, in connection with other facts and circumstances, may amount
to confirmation. Ibid.
3. In such case the grantor is not bound to refund or offer to refund the
purchase money before he disaffirms the contract. Ibid.
See JUDICIAL SALE, 8, 9..
1. A judgment in attachment, rendered without the publication of notice can-
not be impeached collaterally, but must be reversed upon writ of error.
Paine's Lessee v. Mooreland, 435.
2. Where judgment has been rendered upon a mortgage executed in 1798,
under the statute authorizing proceedings by scire facias, and that judg
ment has been revived, it is no objection to the validity of such revived
judgment that the mortgage had but one witness. Heighway v. Pen-
dleton, 735,
1. When a creditor whose debt is secured by mortgage, recovers judgment
for the same debt, takes out execution and causes the mortgaged prem-
ises to be sold, the purchaser takes an indefeasible title, although the
money made is insufficient to satisfy the entire debt. Lessee of Fos-
dick v. Risk, 84.
2. A purchaser of lands forfeited to the State for nonpayment of taxes, does
not obtain a valid title, unless the list of such forfeited lands transmitted
by the Auditor of State to the county auditors, be authenticated by his
seal of office and the signature of himself or his chief clerk, and unless
such lands have been listed for taxation by some pertinent description.
Lessee of Hunnel v. Smith, 134.
3. 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.
4. 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 with-
out notice. Ibid.
5. 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 for the
payment of money merely, the decree, if erroneous, can only be cor-
rected by a bill of review, and cannot be impeached collaterally in an
action of ejectment. Lessee of Boswell et al. v. Sharp et al., 447.
6. A purchaser at a sale made under such a decree, acquires a good title.-
Ibid.
7. When the mortgagee recovers a judgment at law for any part of the
money secured by the mortgage, and causes the mortgaged premises to
be sold upon execution, the purchaser takes the land relieved from the
lien of the mortgage. Freeby v. Tupper et al. 467.
8. Under the act of 1824, defining the duties of executors and administra-
tors, an order for the sale of real estate is not void, where a guar-
dian ad litem was appointed for the infant defendants, who appeared
and answered for them, although there is no proof that the infants were
served with process. Robb v. Irwin et al., 689.
9. Under the act of 1824, defining the duties of executors and administra-
tors, where the minor defendants were made party defendants and had
guardians ad litem appointed, who answered, an order for the sale of
land will be sustained, though minors were not served with process.-
Lewis et al. v. Lewis' Administratrix, 715.
|