Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1844-08-22
SUPREME COURT OF Ixp..Na.
CASES DETERMINED AT TIE NAY TERM 1874.
Reported Ter tie hA4naS SAFE Seetind)

hied hs petition ia tie Citouit count, 10 sui CT he lands Of
the deceased L execution. The petition showed that the
Teii IoteT had previously - fling his petition, obtained a
Judgment against the administrators of the inte>ta'e. and
that al execution thereon c.uld not be satisfied out Of per
sonai property. The petition was against the hens and sd-
minis'laioFs of the deeea>'d. and Icne tenants.
Tie administrations pleaded. that tAey had, tefoIe the rem
fiuon OF the judgment. procured a decree Of the Probate
[ ut 10 sell the same laud-. 10 raise assets to pay the debts
4 the intestaie. Tie decree prohibited The sale Of the land
Tor less than tie aTprsised value and FIR ten months preyi-
Gus 10 ming the peuii-n, could not be executed FOR want of
buyers. The estate was solvent. he'd, tina; such an uns X
eeu'ed decree did rot bar The peiition. Judgment rerersed
Payne 1t al T. The STATE. Enor 10 the Switzerland {. C.
oPinion by Judge DEWEY. 4 plea u a Scire fGciGS on a re-
cogn'zanee # a ioImer JUDGMENT on the same cause Of &C
ton, must show VIII I the defence in the FIST action was, and
that 1t involved the merits Of the cause.
The scfre Jlcias avtTred, that the rocognizare &C on which
II was funded. was t.ken by the Tre>iicnt Judge OF the
third judicial circuit, at South Hanover IN that circuit: The
recognIzanoe beng Sc; out in the writ hGc rerJa. did not
show The plea Of takirg: this is no valance. The aver
mcnt i rot descriptive of The icooguizance, tat alles yes a dis
tnct fact susceI tble Of pioof BY parol.
The wit alleged, that the Iecognizlnce was filed in The
clerks oftee, and recorded on a certain day, and that it wa,
afterwards, on a q herent day, fled and recorded in open
court; these aveImeuts are not rcpugnant.
A president Judge could not. under the statute of 1888,
take a Iscognizarce IetuInablc to a circuit count on; Of the
county where it was taken. Judgment reversed.
TdrbiaI icpm Z. The state. Enor to the Marion C. c
Opinion by Judge BiAcKFonD. In cstitna,ihg The amount OF
value Ct the land taken at The tire 1t was taken, and how
much he CO." piainan''> lend adjoining that t ken had,at the
same time, been increased in value by the location of the
canal, 81 luli be taken into consideration.
And. also. in a>certairing the amount Of such damages. Ell
theT party may show how the canal Vas progressing when
the land wa taken. ard what afpio9iati rs of money had
then teen made fl the completion Of the canal. Judgment
reversed.
Grim T.. Doe or dem Pout. Ap?eaI from the Hendricks c.
{. Opinion by Judge BLACKFt RID. 4 mo t. re in fee Of
real estate has The legal title TO the premises, aud the same
right 10 transfer it by deed as he has 10 convey by deed the
legal title of any other real est t.. Indeed. a. the statute
]. undeis'oa d TO require eonveyanoes Of land TO be by deed,
the legal title Of such mortgage en- he conveyed by him to
a purchaser in no other wy than by deed
Ejecimtnt hy he lessee # a mortgage in fee against the
mor'gagor. The defendant, 10 prove the title cut OF the les
>or, introduced the follow ing deed, "know all men by these
presents. that |. II. l OF. &c, fVt and IN canSidefaton ct the
sum Of 1900 dollars to me soour,d, have granted, barg lined,
sod. assigned, and transferred, and Do, by these presents,
giant, bargain, sell, a>Sgn, aud tanfer, 20 J. G. aud :. "
al my lishr, claim, and interest. in and to a certain mott
gage, and tie premises therein d sciibod, made and executed
T. me bv j. /. G.. on. sc. 10 secure I, me the uaymtnt Of
4 400 dollars with in;eie-t, sc. And / hereby authorize and
empower the said J e. and :. NJ. 10 prosecute, in my name,
all suit> now commence ~ me, or 10 begin and prosecute to
final Judgment ally aud all suits in my name, which they
may deem Necessary in and about the collection of the 100
{ dollars, ana the interest the:oon acciuei, or which may hcie-
after accrue (they 5eiug res onsi5le for all casts, cxg lenses,
sc and hey, said J G and :. NJ are hereby fully auth l.
iIcd and empowered 20 o q r. direct, and coniIol, the 5 n
NOR gage and The collection Of The money thereby secured,
liza my Iane AMI FOR their use and bcnehi) TO all irtents and
Imloses. a. fully and amply a might aud could do myself
and to receive aud receipt Ion the same. he, BY ratifyins and
confirming whatsoever the said JIG and :. M.sshall andmay
= lawfully d IN the vI,mi-es- WItnc.s my hand AMI seal thI~
first Of March, iSll-B. T. fSfAL.'' l. appears that when
= this deed Vas ex,cu'ed, notes were given for The purchase
\ money, ard hat the moiig se referred TO in said decd, was
I the same a. the mortgage relied IN by The plaintiff. Lied,
thai hi. instrument was a decd If bargain and sale of the
~" =" : 49," PSI" '" " !" ec '-""'
aud that the statute of uses Transferred to him The POSSESSION.
II Ieid, al>o, that sid deed authorized he barsaince to collect
the moris &c deLt iOr h, own use in The name Of the TAR
f gamer.
The English statute requiring deed Of ba gain and sale Il
be inIollcd, Is not in force IN Til, STATE.
V Such deeds, under oui I iue, are valid between tbs par
/. ties without teirg ackroW lc'ged or recorded.
\ separation of the legal title t, mortsa.ei premises, from
the Claim at law 10 the mOI's ge debt, frequently occurs
hut If. at any time before foreclosure. the mo. tsasor OF Iii
assignee. pay the dett, he Is entitled to the lcg'l estate
Il Judgment rercrsed.
p.. -. . -. Y -. r 4 O.;,
ion 10y Judge SrLtIvAH !. In an actin of SANDER, word
Il spoken by the defendants since the commencement Of th
: sui cannot be considered by the jury in assessing the plain
- tn, damage. The damage given must lie for the words Ian
in The declaration.
Ia > Words spoken SINCE the commencement CT the sui, cal
be proved only to show the ma'Iceoi the drfeudlnt IN speak
j irg the words, for which the suit was brought. Jadgmea
80 rcrerscd.
I Bascr e A. t MCrec ct al. Error TO The Lawrence {
J" IFearsr ct al. Z. Rasd. Error to the Fountain c. C. Jueg
"a Tie President, Director md Company f The Erncrs'c
: Ol'o Brak { Bfs'css. Error t. the Allen { {. JuJgmea
II affirmed
re- J, 4 mar. ITgus ct al En- or to the cass c. c. Judgmcu
Mureock = Rose Ell al. Error t, nc Union &C. Jads
- mcnf affirmed.
>, Hovi u. Sta,r. Error to the Marion c. c. Judgment al
= ErmoA
5. Doe er aom STATE Bank Sherry Arealf, tie Boon
: &C. DismissedJor rant Of Jurisdiction.
50 surRrrr JUDICIAL CouRr. BosroS. July 2a-Dirorc an
- POiygamy-Befare Mr.. Justice Wide. His honor decree
~ a divorce q tiRcui0, on The libel e MehitaOlc Mish vs.. Z,
" ter Mash, Jr, under the following remarkable apd sc'newh
:, romantic circumstances: In 1886 the IibelIant W q marie
To Peter Mash. Jr, AT Beverly. Mas, and lived with him
. LYNN aud Boston until 1888. when, one morning befO
breakfast, Mash said he was goins out, and would be bac
= TO Breakfast, but dill not return, and was never heard Of uni
70 iouI years Afterwards. In the mean time the libelhnt h
. male every possible inquiry, h! written TO all places 81
IL SUI posed her husband might have gone t., and could he
l2 nothing Of him. Aiier about four years. IN 1910, >he bocaT
= acquainted with William Barrett, who adiIessed her, and
70 honest belief of her hu-ban = death, they were married
thee months af or. SIX weeks after this second mauils
10 Mach the first husband. retulnCt. at the Municipal CouI
"a in October, 1913. >he was indicted on the Revised StIue
chap. $50, sec. -. IL any person who has a former hu>baT
or wife living, shall marry another, or continue 10 COha.
10 " ith such tcout husband, or wife in this state, he or i
- shall be deemed guilty of %polygamy, except, sec. 81, III
le provision shall not extend to any person whose husband
- shall have voluntai lily withi avn from the Gthcr. and renal
/; Cd absent for the space of seven years together. the par
II marrying again not knowing the othc! 10 he living " It'll
that time.
The count. Chief :JasIice Winipms, instructed the in
! that il a husband or wife married within seven years, thou
if II turned out That the absent husband II wife was livI
al 'e time Of the second mairlgc. The jury returned
verdict # guilty. accompanied with a staeuent signed
all the jury tn there was TO mo al quit on the pat Of {
defendant. ani recommending the smallest sentence the "a
would allow.
! : irg been set LED by the supreme Count. il vas carried up
, exceptions. which were overIulcl, aid The Instruct n
Chief Justice Williams sustain ed The patty was then
-" dcrd 4 a; Yeai for sentence, having been on BAH since !
" Trial in the municipa al count. Her counsel stated the facts
NAT the case. u; on which JUICE Wilde suggested that 1t was
4 IS misfortune rather than a crime. aud the d,f,ntant ought
Tea - lie sentenced at al, but ought 10 be honoItd The qut
hey tFn then arose. whether a pardon could te granted hc'r
-re- sentence WIS Pronounced. and i berg The opuiln e {
nly Judge that 1t { all. the d~efrdlnf', counsel aprltd TO