Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1844-12-12
SUPREME COURT OK INDIANA.
CASES DETERMINED 1T TIE sovTMrrR TEaH lSiL
Rssr'el fsr re Is4iaa scsf'usi.
~ Z. II KiEfsrEn. E.c.
WEpNE,pAY. ~. q.

WEDNESDAY,. Nov y.
Gasfrey It a. g. eastman Ct al In charee.y, certified
Allen G. G.. Opinion By SULLIVAN j. Nc X. tea.
the owner Of duplicate land certificates, sold the Ia a
dosc lied az them g., and assigned u hin Of
ceasaies but retained the Duplicate r his possession
Subsequently, De sold The same lard 70 6 aai executed
hin bond r tie conveyance 4 TIC iile. On tl h!el
1T aside TIE assignment OF tho certificate % fFauucr
Held tie bare retention u the dlycle certificate ty
Nc X. not >aieea t. eDutie tie compliments
decree.
To affect the heirs or c. with farl it shoul aave an cared
that the sale to C. vas made anter circumstances which
~ deceit, intended 90 be pscicci a subsequent
gurch4-cr. Bal dismissed f,r rant 81 cfuifr
Aaerc1rs Il al e. Il ef q ~. Eisor Marion { C.
opuisu by SULLIVAN j. Wls q ofega attachment uude,
the stature # ISIS should te made Ie'uinabe
day oil tie term ncN aie ey are Issues; and MT twenty
days.
Wi. Of foreign attachment issued IN F that st4.u,c
that afe etuiaoe IN twenty day. iIIcsuiar and vo
judgment frvelsed.
ITa' ain,rr Rad ldn'r Euor to the Alien c. c. Opinion
~ ). In action law evidence state of
unsettled P'Fnesli? accounts between The paIes
admissible.
IN entry sy parties suit in m accom-;
book cannot be proved ~ aGo without accounting tie
absence OF the book.
An of,g CONCESSION admission course % IN
inc iIcua tfe,ty OF compromise and clu,utinr n i..r
the point yielded fr the sake Of peace AMI MT because il
as competent evidence against the panty
making but Tie law J. Otherwise with regard ur-
pendent fact admitted TO be tue ut not constituting. such
yicliod point
II The plaintiff confess plea peac aai7iaisrarif
in
defendant be administered. Jui.ncnt reversed.
Hraaar The B'ardg Commissioners II TP2ecrqoc county
Error 10 The iIp,sa oe G c. Opinion by Dr%sr } An
County Comni, ncr leasing part II the public square in
a county toxin ior private re.
of he afpecs TO appear at nc first tenn of Ccu
Count thereafter, j, no cause Ds dsnis,in; Tie appeal
Judgment r,vcr.el
Dfris r. my Eror to the roouc G c. opnion ry
BLAckroiD Ii hy cona, for tie sale OF real estate
tie guicha-c money IS T. r pat borc TIC lion Of The
ef; i i, defence to suit 81 &C. "a tie a9nev, I AZ
The deed a uoi been maic or icrtcred
TO Plea 70 such suit. 'lnt gianua had title. had
Mt conveyed 81 'pcati that hc n>icraou had not
fai.,l alleged. Is ,lad. ia Sncni filmed.
Iesaus.n r. Rtodrs. Error to ilc Wayne c. C. Op:n.
ION d, 81 tckfoi." J. A~Sninp-t The first count as
follows That on The 9,lh day Of December. $50 The
defendant sold to the plaintiff 1T Of ground numbered
twelve IN the at Richmond. and The sale thereof
executed 20 the plaintiff, ptnll bond IA The SUM of onc
Thousand d"lla~. with comlou which after reciii.
the a sale Toe ii'c ~uin q" i've hundred dollars pay able
Il, Follows ogre hnnditd COLLAR 10 hand, hole lrr one
hundred dollars able the first oi Orol,r ILL and
4 fTce hundred deltis Yyaile "a the first ur
October lri2vas FIR tr executing hv the delcn ant 10
the ..niii send and sii,rui warranty decd for ihc
SAID l." on The Payment o. sal notes lint on cNc' alton
Of said bcni The plaintiff paid The defendant the one
hundred dusi> in cash. and executed the notes In the
condition t"i he bond menionr and entered possess
SION ol tn property iiai 10 the time Of said SALE there
unpaid n4of- ~ uu ie lot previously secuted
by Miller. the otncr owner of sad lot before The
defendant had ie 70 H. 10 ItllrksIn the
- three hundred dollars. Of tlrh mortgage tie
plaintiff snoraut Uuni hong after his purchase: that
afterwards, IA lel2 the lot sold under a decree on
mortgage. AID the purchaser uudcra decree turned
the plaintiff ef possessions; thai the lendcmi there
fore unable - make ~" plaintiff title 10 the lots thaI
tie tlauiii had made Nilaiic improvements &C. vet
the dtlon an' though often requested had refused 10 pa,
the hundred dollars paid en- the lot pay for The
Improvements mn. that ihis count was bad IN sub
stance. the ground thai it-couiins PROMISE on
which the ariiou OF as-nmq-it could be supported
sff.f,s lst..
fd proofs OF the facts stated IN the first count cNcci,
tia, the mogagor Ind ANY ttle 10 the lot, was INSULT
cicat to support the count
In this Of tho pleas 10 the first de-
INJURED scucray-I ird. that The cont should have
decided on these dcmucrs, that the FIRST count bad
JtdeA4fat yfr'rstd.
Tfpocrnoc cogwy. Error to the Tippecanoe C. G.
JaG galeRt gyirmed
TmunspAv. Nov p
Esris r. CHI Il a.. Error To the Lagrange g. C.
Opinion hy SULLIVAN J. II a purchaser 81 land nj n
sheriff. sale conduct himself induce others
bid. and prevent competition At The sale, by means
whereof he becomes the purchaser of The land at price
greatly below IFS real value the sale beng franl on the
debtor. well against pualIr policy viii be ASIDE
When the parties suit in clauccrv submit the ,aii,e
bill and dcpoStons. II viii tie presumed
this court that replication was waived by The defendant.
Decroc rtrorsed
Siarbuck r Lq-osJg. Error to the WAYNE {. C. Opin-
ION by SULLIVAN j. Where declaration in assump-it
contains count for unhgudatcd dainag AMI Tie de-
icndeut beng duly served Win process mahcS default
the Court should call Jury 10 them Judgment
rcrcrsed
ONT r .u'cieV Error to tho Montgomery { c. Opin-
ion by DrwTs !. An execution legal its face. and
having jurisdiction IN the court whch ISSUED IT, though il
irreguarly issued even u there Judgment
which onud Justification The officer acting
under u. otwiIsamias he has notice Of The reguari-
~. Judgmcat c1'rra'd
GRIMES r. lisp. Error 20 the Carroll { C. Opinion
by Drwr, plea pu''ng IN issue both matter OF re-
cord and matter ct iar should conclude the country,
and be ir.cd by the llry
\ matter Of fact improperly alleged 10 be matter Of
record may be tried by The Jury. J"dgmrni e3irm,d.
HDoLfr It a. Til Sa'c on re' or Hginos ~ a. rr-
to the Warren 6 G. Opinion by BLAoaroHD J. SUIT
BY the STATE on the relation OF ~. against Justice OF
The peace for money collected Judgment alleged to-
have been assigned u the relaior id that plea de-
ny.ng the assignment should bc sworn IT,
The plea Of MI dsit 10 debt on bond j. bad on general
demurrer
justice Of the peace la7 30 authority without special
directions from the sneni creditor person entitled
10 The Judgment, 10 receive any thing hui gold silver
IN pa, meui of Judgment rendered by HIM.
The judgment Of i,cc "a the peace nav. hv stat
ute, be assigned 10 anhorze the be The
relaior a uces houi for tho money collect
cd hv Justice on the Judgment.
\ Judgment shown 10 be night By the violence in the
record VIII not be reversed account of any
tons gwen 10 the Jury
The plea OF MI ia record should be tried
by the and not BY jury
The court Of justice Of the peace is court Of record.
Judgment rererSod.
Rchets r. .1st. Error the Putnam &. c. Opinion by
BLAoKFoEp j The jurisdiction of justices OF the peace,
under the statute of 81 concerning holding
i not hunted to any amount of damages.
That statute only au,horz proceeding FOR tho recov-
cry Of the possession of real and damage, Tor
detention 1t has no relation TO personal property Jodg-
mcRt rcrcrscd
p;gos Trgoe Error "a Tho I ,,,r,,r,t & t)..,,,