Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1851-09-11
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Indiana.

IREPoRTED Esob
Lippencott administrator ct al. v. WygGRf. Error
Marion C. G. BLAcKFoRDJ J. Motion by defendants, to-
amend the record in sIat IN chancery The notion
was founded affidavit, stating that certain exhb
its made part of the answer and hled had been lost
that copies had been kept and setting out the sub
Of the lost exhibits. The object Of the motion
have the record amended that the substance Of
said exhibits, mil ht appear OF record Motion over
raled.
Held-That the motion should have been sustained
was proper that the loss should be supplied II possible
The ancon,radcted written description, Of the exhibits
under OATH should have been received aud Tue record
amended accordingly. Judgment reversed
LPPeneOn ct ST. WygGnf. Error Marion c. C.
Decree reversed
Morton eft al v White a al Error Henry c. c.
BLAcKFoRD, Bill in chancery by White ct al against
Morton Ct al procure the sale of certain premises
mortgsged January Is, fS4l, by Hart and Tate OF
the defendants. The bill states shat the mortgagors
confederatng with the other defendants Owen, Gift and
Morton to deraud the COMPLIMENTS falsely pretend that
said Oven Cliff and Morton the mortgaged proper
ty and that said Owen, Cliff and Morton make the
false preence Prayer for sale OF the property and gem
eral relief. Decree, that certain due on the
mortgage, and that unless the paid by
specified day the premises should be sold. IL appears
that in October lS40 before the execution OF the
gage judgments were rendered against the
in May, lSil other judgments favor Of other plain
fs were rendered against the gagors- Executions
issued all of these judgments and levied the
mortgaged premises among others; the sale Morton
bought oil the morigaged property and claims
il his own discharged from the mortgage. But the
returns Of the Sheriff show that he first sold property
levied not embraced by the mortgage, for greater
than the amount of the three judgments older than
the mortgage; afterwards the Sheriff sold part Of the
mortgaged property Norton who, therefore, purchas
ed only the equity of redemption, having bought under
the judgments Younger than the mortage. Nor can
Morton complain that the part of the mortgaged proper
~ not sold the Sberis sale decreed in this
suit be first sod docs appear that he applied
to the Circuit have the same done. Decree s
rmed and time of redemption extended sixty days from
the fling of the mandate in this the court below.
Stephens v. Horabro0k. d al Appeal Yanderburgh
City of ErGnsUiLle ". Watson. Error vanderburgh
e. G. Judgment affirmed
latham v. Ballard. Appeal Decatur c. c. Judg-
ment affirmed two per cent damages.
BrOSe v. doe er dem Williams ct al Appeal Wander
burgh c. c. BLAcKFoRD, J. Elsctment. Judgment
Tor plaintiff In October, 1913, one Lawrence, who
owned the land in dispute conveyed the the les
Of the plaintiff the conveyance recorded
till July 10, 1915; the sth day of September, 1S43
one Cochran took cut from the Nigo Circuit Court
witt OF foreign attachment against said Lawrence, d.
rected the Sheriff of that county The Sherih's re-
turn to that writ that he had seized the proper
ty oil Lawrence several OF land in said county
At the November term, 1843 publication OF notice 10
OF the pendecy Of the suit proved and the
cause continued. At the May term. lS44 another writ
oil attachment in the ordered to be issued to
Vanderbureh county and the cause continued. The
writ issued and returned levied the property
dispute At the November term, 1874, Lawrence made
default, damages assessed and Judgment rendered
against him, TO he levied of the land attached IN Van
derburgh county. On the 18th day OF February, 1875
the Sheriff Of Vanderburgh, by virtue Of execution
said Judgment sold the land in dispute said Brose
and the 18th of the month made him deed for
the land which was recorded the 22d day OF Februa
ry 1915.
The first objection of the plaintiff in error is that the
Judgment is void for the want of jurisdiction IN the
court In support of this objection it is said that the
writs of attachment respectively returnabe in
twenty days; the first wit commanded the sheriff OF
Vgo to attach Lawrences property. &c, and have It
at the Of court the concluding words OF the
writ, viz: that the sheriff should return the writ IN
twenty days, surpusage. The second writ issued
under the of 1S43 and is Objectionable FOR
being made reurnabe in twenty days. Notice was not
published too See Zeigmhagen Doe d. Strongs
Ind. Rep, ia. The judgment not rendered too
soon the statute OF IS43 required other continuance
to the first writ Nor did the second writ. being
legally issued in the suit. Ii not necessary
that the land attached should have been described in the
notice: the court had therefore Jurisdiction.
The second objection of plaintiff error is that Law
had conveyed the land the lessons Of the plain
tiff before the attachment issued. This objection
tenabe. The lessons deed recorded in the
time prescribed by law, till several months after
Brose had caused his be recorded. Judg ment
versed.
Dugan v. Cummings 1.-TWO cases) Error Hendricks
Circuit Court Judgment affirmed. with six per cent.
damages.