Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-07-04

cf pedar taking load of goods with him; that Letters
had heen received from him dated and osmarked in Moth
Cai"Da but that his family still remained bis property
10 Miami county, living family aud without hasIng
changed their iecnc; that Pendlen had been resident
Of said county for yeas and it not known that he
had changed intended change his residence Inc court
oveIued the motinu aud final judgment was rendered
against p ndrt n by default said service Held that
the If the snm@oh- against Pendeton suf
hcieni, under Statute, r. p. GA, %. Affirmed
with / per cent damages
Herald y. sc"tt ct al Error 10 the D,vie-sC.c.
PERKINS. ]. The assignee uf pfnuisy mute who has
recpvced judgment ssans the mskei cannot afterwards
msintlin sut against the make the ground that the
note void for want OF cun>i icratsu.
The in.orsee Of an rvrIdne nte which assigned to
him the 9th of September $780, in the county where the
maker 'esi'd, commenced u The eiieuit court Of that
e"uny against the maker and recovered Jadg nest at its
Mach term, 1884, after which execution issued against the
makei aud returned sno pToperfy,' &C. Of the
that cuunty commenced 2sth day of
September S40 which in time OT the Ind rsee, after
the assignment have had the maker served w.t.
and 10 have recovered judg that Held that
(wiihou showing valid fo delaying TO institute suit
the ndorsee did not exercise sufficient diligence. t. ender
the maker liable Held also that the fact tina, the assignee
AZ the time the assignment made only on visit To
Knox county Ia, The place where II made aud
resident Of Kentucky did not aotd valid excuse for his de-
lay in commencing suit.
On the tIia of suit commenced by the indsee against
the ndoTse Of pomissory the ground Of the noo
insolvency Of the maker the Sheriff Of the county where
the maker resided of the time of the assignment,
as witness the part Of the plaintiff and asked m
he acquainted with the general reputation of jacob Ha
per- he maker) "for solvency Insolvency in September,
lo4J when the note made Held, that the question
was properly oveued. insolvency perhaps, often
than otherwise understood signify inability TO pay all Of
ones debts and hence The question put 10 the witness in
this he might have undefso it, and answered
cordingy. His answer IN that event, would have
to The real point be Proved and would have been cacula
led TO mislesd the ury for, by law insolvency, APP
lcaoe to the maker Of noie ia suit like this by The
sisnee against the assgnor. means inability iom want Of
property liable execution pay pat Of the given
debt and this is what the assignee, when he takes the
possibility of emitting suit against the maker, bound to
pIove in suit against the ind riser. Violet v. Psiiuo,
anch l42; Cnnd. II. ala; Black Wilson, Blackf.
| 532; Hardesiy v. KinwoIthy, s ID. 304. Affirmed.
| Uhick Maddox Error to the Wayne c. C. Affirmed.
Chandler, admr. Of Sherman v. Swisher. Error TO the
WaIen Z. c.
BLACKBOARD J. On appeal the Circuit Court from the
judgment Of Probate Court in suit commenced under the
Statute authorizing administrators TO be brought
in the Probate Court, r. lS43 664 the CiIcait Court
| acts Oniy a If
An appeal Om the judgment OF Probate Court the Cir
cult court in such be dismissed motion at the
calling Of the cause for tie want Of an assignment of errors
Affirmed
Morse & Carpenter v. Doe d. O'Nea Appeal from the
| Green c. &.
BLACKBOARD J. In ejecmeni, barred by the
limitations prior possesson under color Of title snt
Gent pria fdcie ente the plaintiff to Doe
West. Biackf I33
When such possession is shown is necessary that
enda, who relies upon purchase Of the premises at She
m IS sale, should show in order his defence, tina
the Sheriff authorized to make the sale under which lac
claims
Il Where judgment under which a sheriff sale mad,
nder,d October IS44 in suit contract but
the date of the judgment must be taken determining wha
statute governed the sale Hunt Gregg, Black l05
sale Of land Oh execution by a Shrrf-whch was sub
ect to be sold under The appTsemen law OF l643-wIthou
an apprasenen in conformity with the Statute and prc
paid equal the appraised value void Without such
prasement and payment, the Sheriff has authority to sell
See the case OF Doe d. Holman Collins May Tenn, S4S
See. also, GauIys Lessee Ewing. Howard. u s, 707
affirmed