The Arkansas banner., 1848-02-22

court, whom acquired under such writ over the cause. is appellate. not original The Legislature may invest the Cirest courts with power acquire jurisdiction under such writ, a as to adjudicate causes decided by inferior courts; bat there is no act of the Legislature authorizing the Circuit courts to issue such writ for the purpose of adudicsting cause, that court acquire jurisdiction under writ of eertiorari issued to an inferior court Thruston ct al. vs. Hinds--Enor 10 Crawford Cir cunt court. Justices of the Peace possess no jurisdiction in actions for suse and oceUPation" when the tito to the land comes in controversy; but where there is nc controversy as 10 the tle it Is not essential to the jurisdiction of justice of the peace that there be an "express agreement coOtraet for rent: the action will lie upon an implied as well ascexpress agreement.
 Turser vs. Eustis & Co-Euor to Pulaski Circui, Court
 An affidavit for continuance, concluding with ''the application is not made for delay but that the law may be administered" instead of tkat justice may be done, held misunderstanding departure from the Statute.
 The granting and refusing continuances is with ia the sound legal discretion Of the eour and this court will nes interfere where there has been no abuse of that discretion.
 Anderson ct ai vs. wiitarn--E Error to Benton Cir cult Court.
 The letters "L. s.. are not essential to constitute seal or to teuder a scroll equivalent to a seal. State Bank vs. Byrd--Eros to Pulaski Circuit Court.
 verdict in favor of the interpieader.in action by attachment for part of the property claimed in the nterplea, without finding for either party as to the residue. is naliity. upon which valid judgment can be rendered.
 A person, by interpleading, becomes . party to the record, and his same cannot he stricken from, the docket without his consent. He has no right to file second plea for the same property as his rights may well be adjudicated. under the first Hughes vs. Sloan, as admx.-Error to Ouachita Cur cult Court An improvement upon the public lands, whether the same proves to be upoa the 18th sention or not is good consideration for note: h such case the sale is not of the soil, but of the improvement. Misrepresentation, to avoid contract upon the ground of fraud must be oi material fact eonduc- ing to the eontract andanisleading the party, if he knew that it was false, it could have had no niia- ence upon his decision.
 Where the time of payment is specified in the contract, it is not necessary to demand in the de bor Is bound to pay at the day and place, or De there ready to do so.
 State use of Gaines, ad. d. b. n Furguson ct al Appeal from Chieot Circuit Court.
 In sui, by administrator d. b. n. upon the of- hcial bond of his predecessor. the declaration must aver, in the assignment of the breach. the order of the Probate court and failure of the administrator or his representative to comply, provided for the 37th sec. 4th chap. of the Revised Statutes. Stone ct al. vs; The State Bank Eres to Pulaski Circuit Court.
 A plea by surety in a note that the principal paid to the creditor, after the note became dae, certain and in consideration thereof the creditor agreed to give the principal debtor further time, is bad upon demurrer unless ii that such contact was entered into without the consent of the surety Preston vs,: Davis & NOtribe-Appeal from Dcsha
 Circuit Court.
 A joint action against the obl;gor and person who signs guaranty upon the back sf the Obliga- ton cannot be maintained.
 Tucker vs. WiIiiamouicz-Appeal from Pulaski
 Circuit Court.
 The indotsers of note are competent witnesses prove n an action by the holder agsins, the maker that the contract was usurious.
 1.-the holder had knowledge of the usury at inc time of transfer the plea of usury is good against him: otherwise, where he reeeyed the note in good faith and without actual knowledge of the ssury.
 A paper executed by the psyee pt the time of the asier and delivery of note and connected there with though not o itself sufficient to prove the usu ". if conducting 10 such resa'. is admissible in evidence: aud i, is for the jaEy to determine its ef feet,
 Cunningham vs. Cheathasa--Euor to Hampstead
 Circuit Court
 Ia action upon conditional bond, its sufficient 10 assign breaches in the words of ihe conifact ei ther negatively atGrmasvely, or In words co-ex. tensve with its legal import CT effect and so in an action upoh deysFy bohd il is sufficient to Deea- tive the delive;y of the property according to the condition of the bond and affirm that the shenG re- turned the bond as forfeited.
 
 DagAn vs. Fowles-.Eror to Palasks Circuit Court.
 Tse Territorial Statute authorizing ths issuance of executions against the principal and securities ina forfeited delivery bond. did sos preclude the creditor from iastiiuting an ordinsry salt nPoa the bond.