Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-08-01
Supreme Court of Indiana, May Term, 1850.
Reported for he State Sentinel


BY ALBERT G. PORTER, ESQ.
FRIDAy. May 81, 1850.
SraiIs v, Butcher. Appeal from the Dearborn c. C.
SMITH, IA plea OF justification in action of
SANDER although sustained by proof be
sidered by the jury in aggravaton of the damages.
Shank Case. Nov. t. 1913; Shortly v. Miller, Nov.
L. 1S49 Reversed.
Baily " Egperly Error to the Wayne c. C.
SMITH, J.-Assumpsit by the defendant in error
against the plaintiff in Plea the general issue
Verdict and judgment in favor Of the plaintiff for 1927.
The facts disclosed in evidence the following
effect: Baily and Epperly made agreement in
ing in January, 1S47, for the delivery by Bay Ep
pery of 900 pounds Of bulk pork and 60 barrels Of
lard and much more OF those articles Bay had
spare, at Fairharen Ohio by the LIST of March then
ensng the price of So as per cwt for the pork
and cents per pound for the lard to be paid de-
livery of the pork and lard if required by Bay Bal
y delivered So 900 pounds Of the pork and 81 bar
res of lard according the contract and, after such
delivery, in February, IS47, Parol agreement was
made by the parties, that the residue OF the pork
naming be delivered under tho first contract and all
the pork and lard Baily then had hand should he de-
livered at Kecks pork house, in Hanilon Ohio, within
reasonable time the price of "a cents per pound
for the pork, AID 34 cents per pound for the lard
This suit brought damages for the failure
of Baiy deliver the specified quantities of pork and
lard at Hamilton, Ohio, under the latter agreement.
Held That from the facts shown the latter agreement
was void by the statute of frauds. Reversed
The Board Of Commissioners Of Fountain County v.
Jones. affirmed.
Psndergast v McCdsln ct al Error to the Marion
Per CURIAM--In an action of disseisn the plaintiff
may, under our statutes, recover damages up to the
time C, Of the rendition lion of the Judgment r. S 800,
sec. ar s. p. 1874, secs 20 and p. Affirmed.
Ddris d YeagT admrs. Of Joseph Walter v. Walford
adr. DC bons Of Joseph Walter. Error to the Pro-
bate Court of Harrison County
Petition in said Court by Waord, administrator de
bOnis of the estate Of Walter deceased against
Davis & Yeager former, but removed administrators.
The petition charges them with the reception of Sl51,
belonging Walters estate, for which they had not
cOn nfad naviS dafa QrQd "a
follows the Sl51: He denies that the Sever
his hands, such administrator in any other
way, either separately or Jointly with his oadministra
tor, Davis He admits that he present when said
paid to Davis, but had nothing to do with the
reception OF it, did it, any part Of 1t, ever come to
his hands, any under his control He knows
nothing OF the giving of any credits stated in the petit
ton but he admits there balance owing said
from the person who paid Davis the Sl51, OF about S41
that he and his agreed that said person
owing said balance should pay the to Waord the
petitioner in discharge of debt the estate owed said
Waford, and that said person executed to Walford
note for said amount for which said administrators TOOK
receipt as for so much money paid to Waliord, and
that they charged themselves with and accounted fol
said SAL" &c.
The cause was submitted to the Court upon the pct
ton, the default of Davis and the of Yeager
and decree rendered against both the defendants
for S15l.
Held, That the decree was wrong. Administrators
not liable for the mismanagement of their co-ad
illustrators, where they not themselves IN any
manner culpable An administrator may be passive
without being chargeabe. Yeager is not shown to have
been than this. He could have prevented the
payment of this money to Davis compelled the pay
ment of it to himself; and he is shown to have di
reced positively assented to- its payment TO Davis
His participation in the arrangement of the balance o
the debt affect the Langtord Gascoyne
II Yes $685. is in point See also, Ray v. Doughty,
Blackf. 115; Call Y. Ewing, ill., 301 ReUersed.
Elderkin al " Fitch e al. adnrs, &C. Error to the
Floyd c. C..
Per CUR1AM-Tn practice in chancery, eros
bill is considered dependency merely upon the princi
pal bill.
In the practice in chancery, under statute r.
S4S where the to the original bill is used
cross bill as also in cases requiring bill, the
together make but suit and hence the dismissal o
the original bill must carry with of court the
bill, which is appendage.
complainant in chancery has right to dismiss hi
BILL his pleasure before final hearing, upon paynen
of costs if he be not in contempt Smith V. Smith,
Blackf 332 Reversed