Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1844-08-01
SUPREME COURT oF INDIANA,
cAsEs %DTTrRHISTD At n HAY TERN 1914.
lRs9ortc Jr is L.d4Ha Saie >esfiHdl

iIact. AM how IL has Gftd. Is bal On general q muIfcT.
, Where there has been a sac Of a c4atiei a her upon a
fraudulent mi-Tep c>cuiauoH e H. value, lie ~teicAitnt
may, eIiter IN an rton co lie original contiact, OF. It a
note he given, % al action on tie D. g. under a proper plea,
81 fhe faos in mifi-rf.n &C damages; or If The property
,oi Is Of ~ value o. f. it has teen returned or ichdcFei
the ac-Ion.
3. The assignee of raient fer new ara userulinproye-
mont under the act Of Congress f Fol-. q. 1898. must have
The a>siz'weni recorded n TIE ohce + >ece'aiy 81 SAFE
Il tie Jnrel Safe. To give validity u hi trie and -
each success I've assignment must be Iecoited. 20 give Vaaii-
~ q tie tie IF sut .s4reit pa chaser. JaeS"cFf ferf'fHf
STATE Ga ri II LtegS Z Hes book Il a. EIror 10 tie
IIauisfn &C. CtiIu IS jude DEWEY. IN execu ION
issued ~ a Justice OF Tic peaoe. lsci IN a judgment fr meie
than ore hundred doll.rs. without showing how much u the
judgment Vas for the original debt. AMI BIS much fol the
itteie-t thereon. Is not vcid. Ia plesum, ton i hat the
justice was acting Within ms J1lis.icihn IN ienteii.s tie
judgment. Judgment rnes SCI.
causoa q al r. Lopyy. E'ser 10 The Warren c c. Cpin-
ion BY JUICE hLtcNfoHD- behi ~ a rremi'sofy note. Peas,
faud AID failure Il con>ifcfa ion The defendants oteiei
IN * derce. on thc uial ana advertisement ~ The plaintiff
lor The private sale u certain real e~taic, r. a pant at TIE
pure II wa,h the note ,gcl oa hal been given. The al
voIfisemtut fcI Tesetted fhe .aid as containing a coal 0ank.
SC. and hid been inserted ~ a newspaper publish i IN The
coauiy ~ which tic lami WIS situate. There was no proof
1855; ard the pr chase Il tie and Na> not made uuti
Aun fsia; nor id a. appear t4at the aiveTi>cm,ni had
been ever seen by tie defendants. Hefd, tbat tie adseiti,e-
meat was inadmisslhle as cVil, nce.
\ party may introduce his evidence in tho oFler he PC
fer. ptoFi2ei there Is reason 10 suppose That The evidence
oleIel IS connected wIh fhe c-use. J.dsEslt affirmed
De er sen. Boaaf n T.. Er5'rp. Errr t. the Fayette c.
c. Opui n by Jnig. BLAcEFoRD. Where a pef>oa cutters
into possession Of real estate under a c'rtric, Of sale, the
vendor may al any time previously 10 cNeculng The con-
veyanee, demand possession ct ne promises, AMI may also
Il the demand be MT c implied with, Ilcyver the possession
Of them, ia an action Of cjeciment.
The statute cnceinrE tenants holding over. which re-
qaifcs th,ec mfnths' notice 20 qsi', i not api hclbic TO the
above named case, there being in that case no tenancy IN
which rent was reserved. J4dsasst rere'sed.
Reid 4 Soing It n. Euor 70 The Marshall &C. opin-
ion ~ judge SULLIVAN TAiS cunt has 10 jurisdiction in
any case commenced before a justice Of The peace, when the
amount IN controversy. Inclusive Of interest and costs, Is un-
Ger the sum II twenty d'liass- Ja'e0e"t 'erersed-
WEpvr. Day. Ilnc ,. 1871.
Dagaa L. Cologne. Error u the %henlrck,C {. opin-
ION hy Judge uLLvAN /. An action viii lac against a JUS
lice Of the peace WHO app in,s a special cons allie under the
10Th sec. Of he act u ISIS. regulating tie jurisdiction ard
duties Of justices # the peace. fI a ircssas committed BY
the constable under color Of tie appointment conferred on
him.
,. The appropriate action in such case. the justice not be-
on the ease.
3 The constable in this case. levied on the property Of u
by virtue Of an ox-crton a.tnSi y. NJ demanded the ffHp-
cty from TIC cans'aAie VIII refused TO restore it Sub,e-
quently, and before SUIT brought, the constable offered 20 re-
tGin the property to NJ who tacn refused 10 receive it. Hed.
tnt tie amount Il laEli-e> should ae TIE value ol tie rrr-
perry. and that evidence OF the oil To Ieiura the property
10y the constable, coula not be received in mitigation of dam
ages. Jajsmcgi alrmed.
Cor ct a. 4 HDd~c. Appe:! from ne Hendricks c. C..
Opinion by Judge SULLIVAN. 4 n mi.~ogy note made by
c. VI, and :. was. by an arrangement between \ AMI tie
Iasce b. winch The payee received an equivalent for he
amount OF the note. su~.fcnleled t. \ As Ia, own property.
H1t, that he ? yncnt ny \ and the surrender to him orc
rated a. an cXtiuSui-hueut # the lett. JuarWcaf gcrcrSrL
The S'n'e T.. ThYTst0a e a. EfT9r To The Fankln {. c.
Opinion hy Judge DEWEY When a person i accused of a
crime before a Justice OF The peace, ani recnsnizcd 10 appear
tef1e The Circuit Court, AMI IS convicted n that Count, the
ciulei IL the judgment against tic convict. ~JafgmnEf g-
ffmsd.
Tao~-s =. BiYsy. Error 20 the Clinton &C. Opinion by
Jedsc DEWEY. ), tcc toa nonresident defendant. IN lHl
csut.ai IL next jei m.' sufficiently dc>i .uateS The time and
place AT which the defendant IS required 10 appear. Deere
affirmed.
Puser d al. r.. Mir. A2ar. Error 70 thc Jackson c. c.
Opinion ~ JUICE BLAcGroRD. II two pntnefs be indebted
fr goods sold and delivered, AMI one Die ~ the lifetime OF
tie other. the administrator OF the deceased partner may, by
statute. be sued at law ioi the teit. Judgaf1t rfrefSct.
Hen'oa q a. = Baier. E.F'r to the IenirieSs c. e.
Opinion Is Jude BLtosroRo. Deet on a sealed noe for
the payment e money. Pea. that tie consideration OF the
nsio Va CERTAIN lani Nesc,iiiasi ID t~c.on-us to orc Geo.
AIatlock. an infant: thar al the time the nntc was given. The
fIaud VA soil az PRIV tie sic d tic defendant ~ one Nlcl-
Oh, a c mmissioter apr int,d y Tie Probate Count foI tn t
rutalsc: that ihIcc notes Wcic given by The defendant for
The payment If the purchase N ney by inst, lment>. on oae
OF wtl,h u ';cS, beng the orc la>t dac tins suit i t0uldel
that at the time the notes were given, Nichols, a commits
sisncr as afaIc~aii. executed hi> boai oh igatins himself Il
convey all he llsht aii title 4 sal Nltlpck [, SAID Ind 70
the dcfenAl t. on paynr Mt II the Ipicha>e money: provided
the sac >houii DC confirmed At if set a~air, The note
were l. be returned I, the J fcua mt: That Nichols hS not
made or rendered, nor offered to make or tender to The de-
fenlanf. a conveyance fr the land. either a'>oln.ely or con-
diionaay. or Otherwise, tut has hitheit failed TO % 50: not
can he make such co9vcrancc- AID tha' the cca,i e. alton o
the note has filled, &c. II tt, that the plea was good. Jdg-
meat rsrersoA.
NIrUt-.sIrE u -
Eof e. a. e. Ueti Ct a.. Ap cal from the
Tupecaaue {. G.. Opinion ty IN lre SyLtivAv. ]. WAci,
an execution Il Fl "a was levied on tie real cstst of The ey
ccstioa defendant. and he died sef'ie execution com,leiel
held. that the sheriff might. noiwlii- t ndiHg the death, pro-
coed with tic execution AMI advertise AMI sel The had.
,. When \ purchaser 1t >hsif, sale pays his money an
receives detd from tie sheriff fr the lanl levied on arc
sold. his title j. gloi even II thc s.eIii make AZ In.ei.tci
rta n, or make 40 lc'1in II aH.
5. Asalc Of iau.>. ay vi.tee u q decree in ch'nccfy fic-
clo,i9g n noifA.c. ~ 4ccu.e q dstt contracted nrcvioa>iy 10
tie ia>s'ge Of TIE act f I>ll. feeni ia- hnis IN cet'n1
cases t. be sll 90 e credit. Is lot vpi t,clase the statute
in tat respect, wlsuot pursued. JaGgmsRi egrnel.
CIfas a.. IEr5.lL En- to the CsaIk c. {. O.i aion by
judge Irwrg Pot Two pleas flied by tho defendant
and Afterwards jni-meut entered against him by default
Iid. that TIC iaa-reat was erroneous The 3e'endant
could not re deiaDied White II, pleas remained unanswered
Judgment rerersck
Tesmagt - a. T.. Diris. Error - tho Huntingdon c. c.
o inon ~ luigc rrvfy. II a defendant appear before a
ius lie wi4iont v.iethn- 60 the PToec.s. he cannot Object =
Il in The circuit coglt, GA appeal. judgment rtrTssf.
TIE safer T.. igsast. Eaor to the iIairi.an {. e. Opin-
ion ~ Judge DEWEY IN Indictment fr a mllcols TCs.
pass shoul! show IA What manner the lrj1iy complliued o.
"maiclous'y and mi-chlcvon>iy' inin.'d aoolt4m house Of
the value Of. &c. 10 tie injury OF the owner acestin sun.
Jadsmcat rererscd.
C8aolrsy n a. l.. HreS. Error to the Dcaf5arn c. c.
Opinion BY judge rLAckfoED. suit asaitS' Dlniel Cgs0rtg,
junior and Daniel Coqrgy. senior. The defendant, Pleaded
seIaIs tey :-b'nici Cos9rag. junior. plead q taai he was
cl Conog,y. >,nio pca1ei tiaf he ws called by the SUI
rame of Cogo.rsg and not a.. raH. I-1. that The dt>t plea
WI 4 unlliiv. the ra'i''ion ooml lainei Il b'iu- too Sight
deserve notice. M. alp, Tint fhc see ma plea as valid
and on Tie plaiufiI> Ic. 'vii. that TIC defendant was clnci
a. well ~ he .uiaamc of Ca1.rtv. Is tAat OF C,a0arg. Tho
issue wou j e. o. I how tht d~cleadlut spelled hs tame, tui
how he Wa called anl known. judgment Tcrcscf.
Bstr I. K,eq. l.ror 10 tie la son C.. c. Opinion by
jude SULLIVAN. l. In an aotaa bv an assignee a-linsf the
maker OF a ; r riSSofy fCic. whore the general issue i p etd-
cd, II Is necessary fr The pianui t show that lie note htS
; II The scnc,al issue he g,ct'el with M oath. the Tlaia-
tn : not bound to pove he 'zeca. ion Of the assignment.