Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1851-06-26


At the next term declaration filed in the usual
form. The defendant pleaded that at the time Of the
affidavit and the issuing OF the attachment j. Higgins
resident Of said county, and the Of suffi.
cient lands and goods satisfy said note and interest
Demurrer to plea sustained Judgment for the amount
due, and execution against the property attached.
Held, That the being joint and several, the
is the is il the defendant the ssle maker
hence the plea is bad That this defendant cannot as
sign for the fact that the judgment rendered
for the sum found to be DUE and that execution was
limited to the property attached since In attachment
where the defendant has appeared execution may he
awarded against his property generally. Judgment
affirmed.
MONDAY, June q 1851.
Mcclure v. Whaesides ct al Error. Jefferson c. c.
SMITH, j. Case by Whitesides ct al against Mcclure.
Declaration alleges that defendant the of a
fiat boat Of which Galusha masters that plain
tiff shipped on said boat TO be carried to New Orleans,
100 bbs Of four that said flour lost by of
defendant Error assigned is the refusal of the
receive the testimony OF Gausha behalf Of defendant
Held First, That much OF the testimony ofths witness
offered dsprove the allegation of the plaintiffs
that the flour lost neglect and carelessness in the
management Of the boat which it shipped was
rightly rejected the ground that the witness the
master OF the boat and servant Of the defendant
swerabe the defendant for the loss occasioned
by such negligence Second. That with regard to the
other matters proposed be proved by him. the evil
denee offered by plaintiff is net upon record its reevan
cy cannot be determined and the presumption
Linfx v. Embry. Appeal Allen c. c. SMITH, ].
Assumpsit for the price of certain brick Judgment for
plaintiff Defendant offered prove that after The brick
in his possession they were taken the property
OF plaintiff by constable, and sold. This evidence
rejected
Held, That this rejection is correct, it appearing
from the record that this sale made by virtue Of
valid execution or that the brick was subject to execu.
tion even that defendant deprived of the
then The plaintiffs evidence is sufficient to sustain the
Judgment. Judgment affirmed.
Doe dem, abbott and Demaree Croker Error.
Decatur c. c. SMITH, ]. Eiectment. Plea gull
ty. Judgment for defendant Plaintiff exhibited deed
executed in 1910; lawful possession Of the disputed
premises admitted to be in him at that time De-
PENDANT claims as follows: One Lathrop bought at a
Sheriffs' sale 1S45, pursuant Judgment agant Alb
bott in attachment suit. He conveyed Hamilton
m May 1915. He in the same month gave bond for
Iced to Demaree who assigned it to Young, who in
December 1916 conveyed TO Croker, defendant. In
December 1915, the judgment in the attachment suit
vas reversed by the Supreme Court. Lathrop had
ual notice of the pendancy o. he writ OF Ham
lton and the subsequent purchasers had In Sep
ember, 1916, Abbott executed quit claim deed to
Demaree. -
Held, That in every where real estate has been
old under Judgment afterwards reversed, the udg-
nent defendant should have restitution unless the pur
chaser the execution sale shall have had notice of
he of the tendency of the proceedings obtaina
eyersal Of the Judgment, such the parties to the
Judgment or their attorneys supposed to have In
his suit Lathrop being the purchaser at Sheris SALE
nQ having nOtce, Hamilton Claimed unQer %ltldleQ
tile, and he transmitted nothing better his grantees
The deed of Abbott to Demaree is void; being made
While Young had adverse possession of the premises, it
oes not prevent him from maintaining eectment, and
he plaintiff entitled his demise Judg-
nent reversed.
The State V. Sanders ct al Error. yanderburgh c. |
= PERKINS, Indictment for neglect of official duty,
gainst defendants county commissioners, for failing
examine and report upon the accounts and proceed
ngs of the Auditor and Treasurer of said comfy,
alton to the supus revenue fund in obedience
ions 100, lOl andl02, 252, R. S. lS43 Indictment
uashed
Held That the indictment defective for not showing
hat said Auditor and Treasurer had made, or were
eady and willing to make reports OF their proceedings
regard said funds to said court, that time
hat they were willing to be, present personal
v at such examination. Judgment affirmed.
.Applegate and Graham V. Crawford. Appeal. Car
oil c. c. PERKINS, j. Replevin by Applegate and
Graham against Crawford constable, who avowed
akng the property distress warrant for rent, and
.verred, that it found the premises demised
he tenant Plaintiff pleaded, first, that the property
straned and repeved was not the property OF the ten
mt Second. That the rent named in said avowry did
within six months after the expiration Of the
ease therein named; that the property mentioned in
aid avowry belonged the time and before the issuing
md levy of said distress warrant to said plaintiffs and
hat the not subject to distress for the pay
nent Of said Third. That said tenant did
lis landlord any sums Of money for rent &C.
count of the premises named in said ayowres at the time
aid distress warrant was issued and levied upon the
sustained. Judgment for defendant.
He'd That the first plea is bad, all property found
he premises being facie liable distress, IL not
showing that this property excepted by the statute
The second plea is bad, for msconcepton of the
relating to distress within six months after the
nnation of lease and for generality, in not stating
he facts which would make it appear that said proper
v was not liable for the rent The third plea is bad
his suit being against the officer alone is the in
which TO try the question whether the tenant owed for
he rent Judgment affirmed.
Tomlinson v. Liadley Appeal, vigo G. G.. Decree
affirmed.
Bashor v. Cadu Error, Henry C. c. PERKINS, j., i
Bill in chancery 20 redeem certain lots alleged TO have
,een conveyed security for debt. Decree for CON-
claimants. The evidence does not show that the lots
conveyed besides the statute of limitations bars
he suit. Decree reversed.
President and Trustees Of Mt Vernoa " Dusonchet Ell
u. Error Posey c. e. BLAcKFoRpJ.
Case by Dusonchet ef al. against the President sc.
Judgment Tor plaintiffs The Dusonchets owned wharf
,oat at Mt Vernon. steam boiler lay in the street
IN the wharf below high water mark They notified
he defendants to remove it, who failed to do Soon
lter the river rose and fell suddenly in the night;
buoy or mark showed where the boiler lay. The plar
s boat became injured by settling down upon it, for
which damage suit is brought.
Held. That the plaintiffs, knowing the situation of
he boiler, took their boat the part of the street
where it lay and left it there night they enti
led 20 recover They took the risk exposed their boat
md must sustain the loss. Judgment reversed.
Hill v. Holding Error Lawrence c. c. Errors
confessed Judgment reversed.
Harrey v. Harvey. Error Shelby C. C. Dismissed
'y agreement
WELL PUT.-On the opening of the Worlds Fair, the
London Times abiding to the paucy in numbers oil the
from America, exclamed-"the Ameri-
Eagle spreads his wings DER barren waste in the
Crystal Palacei" To this the New York Express re-
n los hann with