The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1853-07-09
Supreme Court.


ton aud Cook for defendant.
Defendant "a manufacturer Of wagnns) agreed
10 make three lumber wagons for plaintiff within
a given time. The contract did mol relate to any
particular wagons.
He'd, that the title to the three wagons did not
vest in tbs plaintiff on th.ir completion, unless
they had bcen dsiIyeFed to, or poin,ei on. to the
p,4.n,f "a those which be should receive under
the con;rlcI-thi, hs had no right to 30 the de-
teniaut. mandatory, and select any particular
wognus hat as the wagons we've never delivered
to, or set apart Tor him, they continued to be the
property "t the defendant, ami pl,utf could not
maintain r,pe.yln FOR then-ani that hts remedy
was an action on the contract Iur rhe failure to
deliver the wagons according to lie terms.
Al Atii l,,, lor continuance in order 10 pro
cure evidsace u!I,t contain sufficient to render 1:
spp,r,nt TO the court thu, such evidence is ne.
ie'iaI,- Decision in ls III. Report. laa referred
to-
Ebrr r. Ward It ol rs Samuel Armstrong.
Appeal from Cook Opouinn b. Cuon, }. Jud@'
mrnt reversed and cause rvmauled. ScammoH
ani Shumway for plaintiff. IN error Goodrich aud
Arnold for defendant IA error.
10 this case, the court re.atiirni the doctrine in
res,d ia the giving u instruction.. laid down IN
81 Ghman 4S2.
This case arose from collision which occurred
between a schooner and steamboat on Lake MI
chgau. The jury in the court below Eount u yer
L., ~, Z, vnr NJ iha nrt.r tt, IN The
Supreme Cour, 20 into an examination Of the
testimony, and conclule that there WAS careless
ness aud negligence on the part cf the schooner
They say: the steamer was only bound 10 be
farnsed with 4 reasonable and proper lookout,
AMI was not bound to be furnished with unusual
and extrIorlinlry means to discover vessels
which, from their own carelts,ness and negligence
in not providing sufficient and proper light, could
not be seen. except by the use ofsueh exrdog4n-
AIRY precaauonS.'
The ccur, also consider one Of The instructions
given below, erroneous,
John Duolitlle rs Gllrnl and Chicago Union
X r Company. Prntiun I'r wuI ct cul"rau
Op,nIon by FRAT, Z j. ApfIr,ton Tor writ de-
iHtu. p'oG'NA !uA leNs'i"'S', SN'''S 'N' ~ -
company.
The common law writ 81 csrlora,i may issue to
all Inferior tribunals aui jurisdictions N cases
where they exceed their jurisdiction; AMI IN cases
when they proceed Illegally, aud 'Aere /. 10 op
peal or other mode Of directly reviewing their
proceedings Those are the on!y INSTANCES III
which their proceedings can be reviewed On Ger
liorar This application does not iAl. within e!.he'
Of these classes Of cases.
Edward Newhall c. al e. Gilbert Buckingham
assignee Gr. Appeal from MhuesGe. Opinion
by Treat, Z J. judgment reversed and cause re-
handed. ILls cause Was argued at tie last
teTm)
The Eng,ish courts uniformly hold that, on an
execution against one partner, the sheriff may
seiL. the partnership goods and sell the share oI
the partner against whom the process issaed Al
respects The property taken, the partnership dis
solved. and the purchaser becomes tenant II
COMMON with the other partner. Tie however ac
quires the share Of the debtor partner subject t,
tbs right Of the remaining partner, and through
, him Of the partnership creditors, to have th'
property applied, 80 f,r as it may be necessary
+ to the payment al the joLt deots. But tins rsht
IS au equitable one ani cann"l bs enforced At lav
: The weigh, OF aa,heSry ia the United States j
decidedly The same way.
I In order to sell the ineres; Of one partner, IL,
b. sheriff must have the partnership property, 10
a the tame being, in his possession ard under hi
\ control.
! IN equity partner Ia, the specific hight t.
I have the partnership ef-cs fulhlully applied t.
t he payment of the partnership debts. The re4
interest Of a partner in tn, joint property, il
moiety Of the surplus that nay remain after th,
Joint dybs are discharged. This is the only in
t terest purchaser at a sale under execution &c
quires. He holds the property with the other part
!, ner Us tenant IN common subject to a partnership
: account, The account nay ba taken at the in
4, stance Of either The better opinion seems to b,
> ,ha, cour, Of equity may by injunction, restTai
!. sale 10y the sheriff until til, partnership aeeoun
n i. taken, and the precise interest Of the debio
4 partner asceranrd.
i This case being a, law, must be decided on /,
e gal pruriplas. Under our statute whatever Is th
, subject matter II seizure and sale on execution
may be taken in the proceedln, BY attachmen
and held suhjec, 10 sale on the Judgment that MA
be recovered.