Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1848-02-10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.
NoUemLer Term, lS47

NoUenLer Term, lS47.
RIPoRrED FOR sEsTIsEL BY A. N cARsAHAS, ESQ
JAsUARY 25th, 1S45.
Ellison v. DOre.-Appea from the stsuben e. e.
SMITH, Where the defendant contracted to plough
or break up sixteen Of ground for the plaintiff
IN consideration of wagon which delivered ut the
Time The contract entered into; but the defendant
did not plough the land at the time specified, and
ton brought for the breach of the special contract
IL was held that the contract did not specify the par
ucular LOT tract Of land be poughed the plant
had the right select the ground be broken and tho
land designated was Of such character, US TO AFFORD
reasonable for the refusal of The defendant 10
plough il, that fact should have been shown by him.
Held Also that the proper of damages the
value of the labor required break up The land and not
The price Of the icdgOH. Affirmed.
IHgle v. the State.-Error to the Warrck G. &.
PERKINS, IA rule was entered against attorney
to show why he should not be punished for con-
tempt Of court for advising and cOunseng ndI
vidunIs manning tbem] that they could procure
tinuance OF pending court wherever they were
indicted for assault and battery upon the body OF
affidavit, they could then escape and forfeit Their Tecog-
nizance, which would work continuance of said cause
until the term, trifng Held that The
der does charge contempt II does not allege that
he advised them take such course, but merely give
them legal opinion, which they clients entitled
and which he their Attorney bad right TO give.
Reversed.
Smith v. Walker-Error to the TippecanOe e. c.
PERKINS, Ut is general rule of law that contract
ors who JOINT, and several be jointly sued,
the plaintiff will be subject have his action defeated
by demurrer, plea in abatement, the may
justify And it, objection being nterposed, they do
proceed separately to against of such JOINT
contractors the other is thereby discharged from legal
liability tie contract, the ground that Joint
tract is but OF action, and will support but
suit Replevn bail under our statutes joint and not
several debtors with the principal in the Judgment and
proceedings must be had against all jointly
Where any fact appears in the declaration, which
would necessarily be averred in plea to render it Valid
demurrer will lie. But when the declaration, IN the
L.1 al
ready taken judgment for execution in separate pro-
ceedng against omitted joint debtor, which of itself
discharged the defendant from liability actIon and
any pleading lhashnws such discharge, shows complete
bar the action and ground for demurrer Reversed
ChGdd v. ThOrp.-APPeaI from Hendricks c. c. AZ
frmed
COmstOck " Erans ct al 1--we cases appeal from the
Allen G. e. Affirmed.
| King " Ksseu-Enor to the Decatur c. c.
Per Curiam-ln this suit the plaintiff permitted,
motion, (the defendant Objeciing) to challenge eight
jurors peremptOTy-thIs motion was Predicated upon
section of an act purp0rDg be an act passed by the
General Assembly Of the State. newspaper in which
this published produced in COURT and upon
such authority the challenges permitted IL appears
however that the publication made by mistake, for
though such passed by both branches OF the
legislature il had received the signature of the Gov
ernor and did not consequently become law. There
being law in force authorizing such proceeding, the
judgment reversed.
Crist executor v. Crist-Appeal from the Union Pro-
bate Court.
This was an action on two writings obligatory for
the payment of money. There was no plea filed; the
cause submitted to the without jury upon an
agreed statement of facts judgment for the plaintiff He'd
per cur There can be no legal trial Of cause without
an ISSUE Reversed.
JASuAY 29th, 1s45.
Collins, administrator, FdrnSlcOrh.-Enor to the
Tippecanoe Probate Court.
Per Curidm-ln a petition by administrator to OBJ
tain order for the sale of real estate for the payment
of debts under the provisions of the r. s., art o. 527
it is sufficient state the aggregate amount of the debts
against the estate of the intesate Ii is not necessary
that schedule particular statement of each debt
should be inserted in the petition. Judgment OF the
court below sustaining the demurrer and dsmlssng The
petition. Reversed, cause remanded
Clifford DaloSOn.-Error to the Fayette c. c.
Per Curiam.-The dismissal of a without any
reason appearing tor against will be presumed correct
The statement of the clerk the ground OF decision
amounts 10 nothing He Is not authorized to speak tor
the court. Affirmed.
Slater rel. Chandler, Cor ct at-Appeal from the
Warren C. C. Affirmed.
Nell v. Nell ct aL-Enor TO the Switzerland e. e.
Affirmed
! FEBRUARY LIST, 1S4S.
armstrong; ct al Stockton adninistratOr.-ErroI to
the Tippecanoe C.. C.. Affirmed.
Woodruff, v. Keith.-Enor to the Lagrange c. e. AT
frmed
BigeIoc v. Wiuiams-Enor TO the Lapore c. c.
Per CuTidm.-No writ Of inquiry was awarded tor the
assessment OF damages the declaration containing the
common well special counts, and judgment being
on demurrer. Reversed.
frmed
State Ell rel COnekn ct al.v. Murray, ct GL-Error to
the Wayne c. e. Affirmed.