Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-07-11
sUpnEmE COURT or INDIANA.
MAY TERM. 1850
Reported the State Sentinel by Albert C. Porter Esq

THURSDAY, May 80, 1850.
Persons v. Wnshburn ct al. Esrur the BarIhoo-
NEW Circuit Court SmITH, J. This bill 10 furr
close mortgage. The bill alleges that Persons or,ga
gel lot in the town of Columbus, Alsp, October
1896 TO SECURE the payment Of two notes, and that IN
July, I647 Persons executed second mortgage Wask
burn, the complainant, 10 debt amounting To
1867, and payable the LIST of March, 1S49 that no
proceedings had been had at law for tho recovery al the
compainanIs debt aud that The morlgaged premises were
Insufficient pay both the debts with which they were
charged. Persons and Asp made defendants, and
the complainant Tor be taken of The
debts due TO be allowed redeem the prior mortgage
that the equity 81 redemption be oreclussd and that The
premises be sold to pay tito mortgage debts according to
the rights nf the parties.
The that the process duly served aud
the defendants called mud deiaulted. The cause
then submitted the bill, exhibits and prooi, and
the rendered decree finding the due the
mortgages respectively, aud that in default OF the pay
ment of the same within 30 days. The equity ct redrmp
ton in said premises should be oreclosed and the prem
sold aud the proceeds applied, first, the payment
Of Alsips debt ser"nd the payment of the complain
ants aud the overpus any remained, should be paid
TO Persons.
The objection made the procee dng is. the de-
should not have required the property TO be sold Tor
the payment of both debts but that the Court should only
have permitted the complainant redeem the prior
mortgage and hold il with his a lien the land
Held int there force in the objection and that
the decree rendered in conformity with the usual
practice in such 9frmed, with per cent DANA
ges.
Bush v. Keller. Error to the Bartholomew Circuit
J..
joining party from setting up insisting covenants
of warranty Of title deed of conveyance Of land aud
personal property defence suit at law, upon notes
given the purchase money, and from bringing
such covenants Of any failure oil tIe
othe property question, the ground that such cove
nants the deed by mistake, strong cnse
must be made. Reversed.
| McGregor ". JOhns0n. Error 10 the Nigo Circuit
Court. SMITH, To enable b. to support an action
against A. upon agreement by A, To pay TO b., sum
OF money of freight be taken from par
Aab Oaf he drer the
freight should be delivered AT the point Of destinations rs
per with c., b, order from c., is necessary
that b. should establish that c. did deliver the freight at
the point Of destination according hrs contract Re-
rersed.
Robbins ct al " Robbins Error at the Decatur Circuit
Court PER CuRIAM. guardian ad Item cannot
waive the Of process upon infant defendants un-
less they personally present Court the tme and
the dues that they present
the time their presence will not upon error be presumed
Reversed.
Sprigs v. the State. Error the Monroe C. C.
Pea CURIAM.-At the Oct. Tenn, lS4S Of the Jennings
Circuit Court the plaintiff who the defendant
below Indicted for simple assault and battery, under
60. 2 chap. So r. $ 974 On The oh Of Ja0ua-
y Is49 the Legislature passed act giving from its date
exclusive uiidcon in certain counties therein named n-
GLIDING Jennings Justices Of the Peace of the offence
in sail Indictment. In April s49 The Jennings Cit
court upon his liia said Indictment convicted and
fined the defendant Held That the act of 1872 virtually
repealed the law giving the circuit court jurisdiction
of offence Of which the defendant below convicted
and contained saving clause as to existing cases. aud TIA
therefore wrong. Vide Taylor v. tas
State, BIackf 80. Reversed.
The city Of indianapolis BY the Ell al. ErTo
10 the Marion Court of Common Pleas.
PER CURIAm Deb, by the city Of Indianapolis sgains
Blythe and HeddeIy, to recover Of them penalty OF q
dollars for keeping nuisance within said city, The coui
below dismissed the suit The mater complained oil wa
nuisance, from being declared by city bylaw bu
at common Inv. Held, that the decision was right Keep
ing nuisance was criminal offence law ant
by Statute. The therefore falls directly within th
city Of Madison Hatcher, Blacki. BAL, 10 which th
court sdhees. See WEIGH v. SIowe Doug. 322; Zysr
v. the corporation of Charleston Bays Rep. 3S2; BaIte
v. the Commonwealth, Penn r. $685. U. s. Dig 4SI, sec
81; Bogart '. New Albany, May Tenn, lS4S. 4lIrnsd
PERKINS, J. On application for divorce and amony
reputation is sufficient evidence Of marriage.
By the law particular ceremony to the vail
celebration Of marriage is necessary The consent oil IN
parties all that is necessary, aud marriage is said TO
contract je gentiHn that consent is all that il needtu
by public IL the contract be made
bd de PRESENT. made per rerbd de uturo and ollowe
by consummaton it amounts TO valid marriage aud whic
the parties cannot dissolve, II otherwise competent III
not necessary clergyman should be present give
y the marriage the consent Of the parties may be dc
cared before simply before witnesses sui
sequenty confessed acknow lodged the marriage
be inferred from continued cohabstion and Iepua'io
husband and wife, except in civil actions Tor adultery
public prosecutions for bigamy. See Bouviei's Law Dict
tit Marriage. and the numerous authorities there cited
Where parties have lived tgeher in another State undo
common law may be Inferred and no Statute oil such sa
is gwen evidence upon the subject of marriage. vail
between the parties will be presumed upon sppl
cation OF one Of the parties Tor a divorce. Affirmed.
McCIerry ct al v. Mstson. Error TO the Probate Cou
Of franklin Co. PERKINS, J. Petition under 80
chap 80 r. S. p. 549, by the plaintiffs IN error who al
children and heirs Of Ellen McCleny. deceased fOmer
Ellen knight half sister of Thomas j. Knight, deceased
sganst Maison, admT. Of The estate of said Thomas
Knight claiming dstTibuiive share OF said estate IL
facts OF the Phomas J. Knight died,
IunatIe, Cincinnati, o., in 1884, leaving property
BrO0kyle lnd and in NaicheZ, Miss LetelS OF ADMIT
sation his estate granted. on the 18th day
August 1884, by the Probate Court Of Franklin county, Ind
Matson; and in December 1874. by the Probate Court
Adams county Miss 10 one John Knight Of Nstchez Bo
administrators duly qualified and acted such. VI
the Of the estate in Indiana by Matson the
remained in his hands $500, fOI DESTRUCTION among the he'll
Upon The of the estate In Mississippi there
\ manned hands of Knight, tbs administrator Their
S3277,20. By The law Of Mississippi the hall olord do
not inherit by the law Of Indiana, il does. knight u
Mississippi administrator under the order Ut the court ther
distributed the whole amount in his hands to The oothe
and sisters Of The whole blood giving to each oil them Sbos
A. The petitioners in this succeeding to the rights
of half blood by their petition claimed the
tire sum-300 dollss-n the hands Of Maison for dist
bution- being less than sufficient TO make them ecu
with of heirs Of the whole blood. The
low refused To- grant the petition
The facts relation the domici Of Thomas J. Knigt
l. al the time DEATH His oyhood spe
in Rockville, Indiana. When youth, he went 10 Cinci
II natl TO learn trade. la 1888 or he weO TO Nstche
Miss aud engaged in business there with brother Abo
SA2 he returned 10 Rockville aud said he designed to ma
il his permanent abode; he owned real estate there and
chased materials for buing voted at elections and int
ested himself in politics. and in the asirs OF the town
Citizen aud said he did not intend 10 return t. NacheZ.
was unmarried In the fall Of lS43. he became
sane, a hospital in Cincinnati o., for tresime
and died in 1914 Held that il satisfactorily appear
from said facts that bis domci at Broukvie lndiaI
Held also that his domic at the time OF his death ha
ing in Indiana, his personal estate (Which that in
10 hands Of both administrators matter where siiu
D ted dsrbusbe according TO the law OF Indiana.
rys Conf Laws, fSI; Kent's Comm 429; Wheaton
n Law lSs. Aud r. s. Of Ind. SOL
N Held also that from what is shown in This proceeding
peoners in this eannot be regarded as having be