Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-12-26
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Indiana.
NOVEMBER TERM 1850
Reported for the Indiana State Sentinel
By MESSRs. BARBOUR ~ PORTER Attorneys al Law


MoxDAY, Nov %. 1850.
Nelson V. The State.-Error To the Madison Circuit
Court.
SMITH, IA Circuit Court cannot acquire iurisdic-
ton Of offence exclusively cognizabe by Justice of
the Peace, by mere charge in the Indictment Of an
offence OF higher grade, including the over which,
the justice has exclusive jurisdiction. Rerersed
Smith v. The State.-Appeal from the Jefferson Cir
cult Court. Same point decided
Jones V. The Commissioners oil Nanderhurgh Coun-
nty.-Error to the Nanderburgh Circuit Court AZ
frmcd.
Higgins v Pence.-Error to the Miami Ciruit Court.
affirmed.
Doe dem. Cooper V. Harter.-Error to the Allen
Circuit Count.
SMITH, This was an action Of ejectment brought
to the possession OF land sold upon several
cutlons at sherifs sale The judgments had become
dormant and had been revived when the executions
issued The purchaser who is the plaintiff in this suit
was of the execution plaintiffs and the attorney for
the other execution plaintiffs. Held, that although the
purchaser affected with notice Of the rreeularity
vet the sale absolutely void but only voidable
In this suit the rreguary of the sale is brought into
question only collaieraly, and the court will presume
that the defendant waved the irregularty for his
benefit to costs In like the present. where
the question of such irregulary colatcrally
makes difference whether the purchaser purchased
with without notice.
An execution which recites the debt merely without
recitng the damages amsndabe and the defect does
affect the validity of the sale. So if the of
the defendants are stated in general terms, by
vitiated.
1t objected in this case that the recosnzsnee of
the levin bail void because the repeyin BAD did
not subscribe their names to the recognZnce. Held,
that the Statute then in force, did not require par
ties entering into such reeognzanccs subscribe their
names thereto Address V. The State Blaekf., LOB.
affirmed
Moore v Sinks-Error TO the WAYNE Circuit Court
PERKINS, AN easement upon the land and water
of another he established only by deed pre-
scrpye evidence of deed, except in where the
party denying it, is estopped by his act
BY such evidence easement NAV be shown to TO be
appurtenan other land than that upon which
joyed But the right must be clearly defined by the
of the deed other evidence and cannot bs in
lerrcd without showing the express intention Of the
grantor. .76frmed.
Ellis and others V. The State. eN REL Jamcs.-HfroF
to the Posey Circuit Court
BLACKBOARD, This action of debt ssan
School Commiss 3ners bond, which was made payable
the State of Indiana for the of Township Schools
The Statute of 1888 page 3d. under which Ass bond
given required that the bond should be made paya
bic the State for the of Congressional TSrasis
within the county. Held that this mistake
terial and the defect might be cured by suggesting "a
the declaration the defect in the bond
The declaration amended by striking the
words 'or the of the inhabitants of Congress nal
Townships" &c., and inserting in lieu thereof s@ tho
relation of Elisha r. james, School Commissioners Of
Posey county. Held tiat this act authorized by
the of 1872 page no. continued in force by act Of
1S43 page 1896 That there is also another ssssuse
which authorized the amendment which Statute
that the court rlay give leave 10 amend any Psta%e,
either in form substance for the furtherance Of Sice
at the cost of the party amending Revised Se&tutes
1S43, page 713.
1t is not error for the Circuit Court to refuse the
defendant over of the writ if the motion is made
late to plead in abatement. And the Supreme Court
will presume that the motion was correctly overrss il
the contrary does not appear
Upon a writ of enquiry assess damages, the lnry
cannot under any state of the proof find for the desnd
ant.
Where there are bonds with different oIligor FOR
the debt duty, the plaintiff has right proceed in
suits upon both bonds until be obtains satisfaction Of the
which he is entitled. The is similar
satisfaction bar TO the other suits There is
difference in principle whether the several defendants
bound by the different instruments Of writing.
affirmed