Indiana State sentinel., 1848-03-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.


Noremler Term. l547.
REPORTED TOR THx sENTISEL BT A. ". cArSAHAy, rsq.
FEBRpARY ~, le46.
Seey. administrator. &c, I. HOlmes-Eor Lagrange
Probate Court.
Per CWiam-Assumpsit by Scely administrator, &C. for
demand due the niesste by open his life time
On the uis the defendant proved agan the in
estate for like demands which had so occurred during the
lifetime Of the latter by way OF set-o The Of the
Dtetste proved 10 be nsovent The complained
Of. is the allowance Of the setc instead of allowance
of rata division of other creditors
Held that the statute expressly provides that actions by
executors and administrators, demands against the esaoI
inestae which belonged 10 the defendants
their DEATH may be off in the if
on had been brought by the dsceased r. s. lS43, 709
Affirmed.
Raub ct al. v. Eeaih- the Tippecanoe c. C.
PERKINS, IA sherifs sale and deed gives the bar
ginee constructive possession Of the land purchased aud
such possession is sufficient support trespass.
sheris deed if valid, in The purchaser. under the
statute the legal title AID right possession deeasble by
redemption pursuant 10 the statute.
Under our statutes the sheriff is required TO execute bis
deed To the purchaser Immediately ulOn the SALE and that
vests in him the little and right 10 possession.
An execution-pani chageable with notice of all ire
gulaIi les al a sale by sheriff.
Under the statute If 1885, the clerk of the Montgomery
c. C. issued III a the sheriff Of Tppecanoe county upon
judgment rendered in the Montgomery C., by virtue of
which real estate was levied and sod there appearing
to be no personal properly beongg to the
ant ia Tppecanoe yet there property belong
ing 10 said defendant in Montgomery county. Held, that the
sheriff oil TppecanOe county executing said d could
not look for personal property beyond the limits Of his
county No ieguariy in executing aid wri. could there
fore attach TO him.
Held alsn under the said statute of 1885, the execution
plaintiff could, in the fs, Instance, execution any
county IN the state he chose without regard
perty belonging The defendant in The county
where the Judgment rendered but the officer to whom it
directed would be bound first exhaust the personal
property belonging TO said before pro-
ceedng to sell The execution in this
therefore legally issued.
Under the Revised Statutes Of IS43 the execution plain
tiff must sell the zeal the county in which the
different county for personal property. Affirmed
Reed Craze, Administrator, Se.-ErEor 10 the Wayne
C. c. Affirmed
Silrers " Butterfeld-Error to the Allen Circuit Court.
Affirmed
Campbell v. Nef ct Gl-Enor the Tppee,noe Circuit
COu.t. Affirmed.
MAncH IL, Is4s.
Adams Sub5s.-ErrOr the Dearborn Circuit Court.
Reversed.
Wright Smith, adninstrGtors Ashton and Davis
Error to the Floyd Probate Court. Reversed.
SMITH, j. being party in the above case, absent.
Thomas ct HuttOn-Elror TO the Faye,te Circuit
Hanna al HiHiard e al-Error the Allen Circuit
Court Affirmed
Kinser " Vleit-Enor to the Martin Circuit Court If.
frmed
Conaingore " Ludcick adninistrator- Appeal to the
Hendricks Circuit Court. Affirmed
MARCH II, ls4S
McQuiLkin v. Doe dem. Stoddard-Enor to the Vigo
BLAcKFoRD, J-This was an action of ejectment. The
land in question owned by resident and sold for
road tax in question assessed and the sale for its
payment made by virtue Of The road law Of 1922 which
with many others, repealed by statute If the 3lt OF
January 1924 which ok effect from its passage saving
however, act done, previously TO the taking effect
Of the several acts of 1924 On the day which said
repeating act passed. road law passed which to
take effect fom and after its publication. As the road law
of 1922 under which the sale for the road made
repealed long before the sae the egsty Of the sale
would manifest for the saving clause in the
repeating but that clause does affect this question
The former law ceased 10 exist after the latter went into
ration these laws being clearly epugnant 10 each other the
first superseded by the last. The law of 1922 being
thus repealed about the 3st of January 1924 and the sale
wing been made until November 1924 the sale there
FORE and all the proceedings for the collection of the
after such repeal, void in consequence Of which the
purchaser the sale for the under whom the defend
ant claims had title to the premises and the plaintiff
therefore entitled to recover. Affirmed.
C0ndpdy ct a. Spear ct d-Eror 10 the Dearborn Cir
cult Court
Per Curiam-Decree affirmed, except TO the costs 81
much of the decree as is for costs, is reversed
Wyatt ct a. v. Chanbers.-Error the Owen Circuit
Court Affirmed.
Harrisoa " WalpoLe the Marion Circuit Court
Affirmed.
WonderIy ct v. Nokes.-Enor to the Decatur Circuit
Cont affirmed.
Colraaa " Speaoer.-ErOr to the Allen Circuit Court
Affirmed.
Peak ct al Austin ct Gl-Error to the Martin Circui
Court Affirmed.
adams al. v. Beringer ct aL-Error to the Dearborn
Circuit Court. Affirmed.
Smith v. Tuttle.-Euor TO the Harrison Circuit Court
Affirmed.