Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1852-01-15
INDIANA STATE SENTINEL
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Indiana.
NOVEMBER TERM, 1851.

RsInhard Keith Error to tAe Wayne County
Court.
Keith took out writ Of foreign attachment in Wayne
county, against III. and S. BLACKBOARD in 1917, which
directed the Sheriff Of that county and by him
returned that the defendants had property IN that
county. Afterwards another writ Of foreign attach
issued by the clerk OF Wayne county, diTec-
ted the Sheriff Of Henry county, which was returned
by him levied certain real estate a summons was
afterwards issued by The clerk OF Wayne county drec-
ted the Sheriff OF NgO county, commanding INN TO
Reinard earnshee in said attachment suit
appear the o. the Wayne Circuit Court
Subsequently Judgment rendered against the az
tschment defendants for S270 and against RelEhard by
default garnshee FOR $3.50, who brought the to
the Supreme Court.
Judge BLAcxFoRD held,
l. That the clerk of the Wayne Circuit Court had no
authority to issue the summons against Renhard, he-
canSe the r. S. Pr. 49, 772, IA, expressly declare
that Judgment shall be given against the estate OF
the abseondng debtor or against sarnishec. ua'ess
the writ of attachment shall have been executed on
property belonging to the abscondns deb'of STU
in the county where the suit commenced or IN
less process shall have been served upon some sarnsnee
therein residing or found.
2 That the provision Of the r. S. p. 767 authorsing
proceedings against the garnshee where The writ OF al
iachment is returned emo property ound has reference
only the sunmnninr of n aarIshee who IS resident
in the county where the attachment issued
Judgment against Reinlarl reversed, &c.
Philips Doe. Error TO the Cass Circuit Court
Rlcker brought this action ri eIee msnt against fhi-
ips and recovered IN the court below
In 1917, William Brown, then the owner oil tle iand
this suit, leased u tn RucSer ON conditions
that he would do certain clearing and ieneng Tor which
he was to receive Sl30 and for every acre o eeared
ground he pay Brown rent oi two deiiers. 10
be made in annual payments, the hrst I" tie Pa On tie
LIST day of January, 1919 And il he neglected or re-
fused To par the when due Brown was authorized
% said premises aHd take posscsSioa' the
whole Of them without any hndrance whatever ana no
wheat corn haJ other article. raised or growing,
on said premises was To be taken oil them until TIC ul
amount Of rent coming to Brown was paid Bucker
failed paw the the lst Of AIRY. lS49 but "
al ter
wards the premises. In the spring OF lSl9 he snb-
leased the honSe and garden Richardson until Inc
LIST Of October following In April 1912, Brown sold
the land 10 Philips who bought Richardson's lease aso
and then took possession Of the whole farm Before the
time when Richardson's lease would expire, this suit
commenced.
JUDGE PERKINS held,
l. That in order u work forfeiture Of the lease Ion
non-pavment of rent. IL necessary that BrowH
shoud have demanded the amount Of rent dne, on the
dav IL fell due and just before sunset that day Ad
Eteet. 49, II John. &C.
q That the provision in the lease, prohibiting the re-
moval Of the hay, &c., was simply a covenant, Inc
breach Of which dill not work forfeiture 81 the lease
Express words Of Te-entrY necessary. In Coke
upon Lttlefon 204 n. IN the observation upOn Sect
800 it is saJ Thereby il is evident. that some words
OF themselves do make condition. and in some othei
(whereo auhcr here and in the next section, ru
teth example, do not Of themselves make a cond
tion without conclusion and clause Of reentre." See al
SOD Kent 1913. Comen 22l
Judgment affirmed.
Burger rs Rice Error 10 the Floyd Circuit Court
Rice hal agreed with Burger let him have half the
paupers Of Floyd county keep he having, by contract
with the Of the poor the whole of tbcm 70
keep. This agreement he violated and this suit
brought Of It's breach The court below In
sructed the nrv that IT the contract between Rice and
the overseers was made pursuant law il n val
ID contract. and imposed mon Rice personal trus,.
which he could not righully transfer another; thai
such transfer not in accordance with the Of
the contract and in violation Of the most obvious
principles Of public policy This instruction was except
cd to. Judgment given for the defendant.
Judge PERKINS he'll.
!. That tic Revised Statutes r. $50 section 6, con-
tempatrd that The ovcEseers ia awarding the paupers
upon bids received not hound tn receive the lowest
hid irrespective Of the person making It, bu are 10 he
Influenced by the moral character of the bidder well
as by the price offered.
2 That this construction OF the satrie i favored by
other provisions Of the law. The reqnr-
ed to exercise general OVERSIGHT rs to the treatment
the paupers: r s.. p. 356. The Cauniy Commission
ers, counties where asyluns bnlt e. employ
some humane person te take charge Of the asylum: X.
y, p. 36l. So in analogous cases contract OF ap-
partnerships assgnabie except BY consent OF
ties concerned: Keats Com, PSI; T. r., 60;
Bing 229.
g. That the contract, therefore, upon which this sui,
was brought was AGAINST public policy, and voil
Judgment affirmed.
Rsvis and Colamer 49, Doe. Error to the Rush Cir.
cult Court.
In 1917 George Hewitt conveyed to CalIamer the
land in In 1914 he had sold the land BY
contract 10 Joel Revis and received the greater part II
not all Of the Purchase In 1910 John D. Revis
such bail his property was soil in lS47 to satisfy this
juigmsnt. Fonr DAYS before the Ian conveyed
COllamer, John ID. Revis obtained judgment against
said Joel for S127 tn, made Of his proper
ty- At that time Joel Rcv< had bill pending,
pei Hewitt 10 convey the aa him bnt John ID.
Rcys obtaining lis Judgment, an arrangement took
place between Joel, Hewitt. ard Colamer pursuant
which; Hewitt conveyed 20 Collamer. The land was
subsequently, sold % sa isfv the Judgment Of John ID
Revis and the purchaser that sale briggs this suit In
the c0urt below the vance Cnamer ciaetl
to be ranaeat and that the land passel by tic shes
sale.
Judge PERKINS held,
i. That The evi lence, to the question whether the
COlamer was fraudulent or not was such
that this would have disturbed the finding Of
the jury, had il been either way.
2 That whether the land conveyel to Collamer
in for Joel Revis. with intent TO deraud" John
d. Rows ont Of his judgment, Coamer being party
10 the fraud questions for the jury, and in either
ease within the provisions Of tho statute # rans
in references TO the sale al lands execution: r.
453 section l.
g. That il was no error to sell the land without an
prasement because the bail the Judgment was in 1870
and the law then il force did require any appraise.
msnt.
Ju5gment affirmed
Watson rs, the State. Error to the switz, rlanJ
Circuit Court.
This was an Indictment against Watson Tor know nolz
williily permitting his horse to he in what com
monty called horse along and upon a public high
Judgment for the State.
The person who rode the horse testified that he bor-
rowed the horse from the defendant glilop with an
other persons horse; that they did not gaop at more
than bali sPecl; that there no let or Judges, &c.
There was Other testimony showing that defendant
knew lis horse was ~ be Iun.
IL conende1 fDr the defendant that 10 constitute
horse there must be bet a certain stance TO
be run agreed uPon and adges appointed to decide the
race.
Judge SMITH held,
That these ormalitcs not necessary to consti-
fste the OfenSe f,r which the defendant was inflicted