Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1847-07-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
Nay Term, 1917.

RhOda Loutsoin another. Error to the TppecanOe
C. C. BLACKBOARD J.
An authority BY deed is necessary to bind The principal
under seal But in this (which action OF debt
on single bond for the Of money! the evidence
bond. IL proved that after the bond bad been signed
with the Of the defendants by their direction and
their seals attached thereto hey not being p'esen 1t was
afterwards shown 10 them by the plaintiff and that they
said sit all rgh Held That il not necessary foI
the defendants themselves 20 their and aifx
their seals the bond II upon being shown them
after their signatures and seals had been put H. they ac
knowedged il 10 be their act and Decd used words equiv
aen to such an acknowledgment may be considered their
deed.
The statement of fact may be made by witness the
best Of his recollection belief he thinks the facts
10 be, aud the evdence is admissible Reversed.
Sucker Ddri Error to the Bartholomew C. c. 0pin-
ion by BLAcKFORD, j.
Action Of Sander In this case it was considered that
the words charged TO have been used aciionabe.
That the iHnVendO TO the meaning of the defendant was
warranted by the previous allegations in the declaration
That the words used viz: That the plaintiff had the de-
PENDANTS horse cannot be fairly considered TO signify, with
The assistance Of the predatory allegations and cOloquiHm,
that the plaintiff bad stolen the defendants horse Affirmed
Spoken HOuingshead Error Jay C. PERKINS, J.
compromise obtained by fraud cannot stand. A COM
promise OF suit in which The plaintiff could not have re-
covered thing account Of having ground Of action
Harmon, ETecT. &c. .. Brchard Appeal from the Or
ange C. c. SMITH, J.
voluntary payment of money in discharge OF the debt
OF another unless made at the parties request by his d.
recOn, will not bind the party for whom the debt paid
10 constitute valid claim against the latter payment, uD-
less expressly requested for legal demand
which could not be resisted.
garnishee in attachment is not bound TO superntend
defence for the principal debtor and not answerabe for
such effects and irregularities in the proceedings relate
only 10 the mutual rights of the original parties TO the at
tachmen suit but he should know that The proceedings
against himself valid and such he is legally compel
nature e Pde so far as the attachment debtor concerned
they no evidence OF any request either expressed or I'M
piled on the part OF the latter.
Prior the of the r. s of s43 Justices of the
|
administrators defendants aud had Authority 10
summon executors administrators and require them to
ment. Affirmed
Laelie ct al o. Jackson ct al Error 10 the Cass C. C.
affirmed.
July LIST, ls47.
Ortiz The Slate Bank Of Indiana and Jennings ct al
Appeal i'om the TIpPecanoe c. C. SMITH. j.
The provisions Of the Statute Of frauds in folce prior TO
the passage Of the Revised Statutes Of lS43 making estates
held in tust liable TO execution, applied only 10 such trusts
expressly declared by deed, resulted from
conveyance by implication of law.
such trust could result when there bad been simply
contract 10 purchase without conveyance though the
chase money should have been fully paid The decision in
The Of MOdsSe Robinson 81 BtdckoT 43, Te-ex
amined and conf med.
The provision Revised Code of 1888,
making deeds not recorded within twelve months alter their
execution void against subsequent purchases or mott
for valuable consideration, unless recorded before
the Acknowledgements proving and recording OF the deed
or mortgage under which such subsequent purchases or
mortgage should clam do not apply to judgment cedos.
When had sold and conveyed tact Of land 10 c and
the latter had paid the purchase money had
his deed 10 be recorded within the time required by the
Statute aud the land afterwards sold under execution
as the property II he being in possession and the deed to
still being unecOrded, pucha at the sale by the
Sheriff. would be protected by the Statute TO the same
extent that any purchaser would be protected during the
purchase the time The sale took place Such protection
would not be upon the ground Of lien relating back TO The
rendition of the Judgment there being such leo, but 1t
would be afforded because the purchaser at sale under
execution would possess the rights purchaser Of
the execution defendant.
la spch cos. 7 had land n bv deed
in fee simple for reasonable consideration after the Iend-
lion Of the judgment and had procured his deed TO be
ing actual notice Of the to the former
qured good little which could not be afterwards Invested
by sale under execution issuing up1n the Judgment
! 9fimed.
Peterson and Lyle Deckey Error the Fayette C.
p Perkins,
This action of debt two pomissory notes, Civ
the defendant the plaintiffs in for the
payment of Sl42 u each and years, dated Sept
18th, 1888 The defendant plead IN bar title bond TO cer-
tam lots oil land "a west Logan made by the pSnuhs TO
The defendant The plaintiffs having cTayed and obtained
oyer OF the bond aud condition, demurred.
The material facs in the briefly these-the de-
PENDANT upon negotiation with plaintiffs for said lots of
land, paid them S945, and gave his said TWO Promssory
notes o the residue of The purchase money and took from
them said title bond the condition of which, inter ALA
taIus the following agreement it expressly agreed
between the pses that if The said notes and interest
not paid maturity, then this bond shall be void and
the money paid be forfeited said Peterson and Lyte
The parties by express agreement had declared that the
Consequence of the aymen Of the at maturity
should be- that the bond in question should be void aud the
purchase money pai1 forfeited Held That the rendering
void the bond produced failure of the consideration OF the
no at The Time became void. and action can be
, maintained upon them.
ArmeHirOm .. Meranda. Error to the Marion c. c.
BLACKBOARD, J..
This action for libel Held That the publication
complained Of ibelous, it contained charge Of
dishonesty any other misconduct calculated 10 nure the
plaintiffs reputation affirmed.
Lcird o. Petinger Error the TippecanOe c. c. If
frmed
Biaenore ct Bysten ct al. Error to the TppecanOe
C. e. Affirmed.
SfeCart for The Of KeeriRg BreaeT. Error to the
Warren C. {. affirmed.
AndreIOs Herat Appeal from the Delaware c. c.
ETick v. Dell. Appeal lom he Marion {. c. affirmed
LeciSiOH ct al. Hunt. Error the Union c. e. A-
, frmed.
Stole REL LOwrey Badey. Error 10 the FOsntan
c. affirmed.
July 7tb, ls47
Jones o. Thomas Appeal from the Union c. C. SMITH, ]
One Bennett being The Of tract OF land, executed
two cages Powell daed September lS4l and one
diied Mach 1872 The plaintiffs JoneseS obtained judg
virtue of execution issued their judgment in April
1884, they purchased the aud pOhls for Two years, and
iheu leased their tenn 10 The defendant the die TO pay
them half crops upon by way OF
Ia Ap S45 Powell obtained decree OF foreclosure OF The
mortgages beoe mentioned aud the OH Of August 1915
he purchased The fee simple OF the mogaged premises fo
$780, leaving portion OF the mortgage debt unpaid Hed
That possession cannot make valid lease Il
bind the mortgages and The foreclosure and sale, tho
title aud interest Of the plaintiffs their lessee they being
in the position as the mosago were diyesled and the
mortgage purchaser under the sale entitled the
crops growing upon the snd at The lime Of the SALE A
, fTmed.
Whitehead o. Cummings. Error 10 Jefferson c. C. PER
KIEs, J.
This is bill in equity brought by Mrs. Cummings agains
Whitehead for her dover n certain lands sold 10 Whehea,
by the sheriff of Jefferson county eight executions ssains
her husband Some Of the judgments upon which these
ecuons were issued, we've rendered pior 10 her marriage
with Cummings in 1871.