Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1855-12-15

when placed where they cannot under any
circumstances do mischief. A little precau-
ton now may prevent the most deplorable con-
sequences.
-unP ROCEEDINGS OF COURT
Cam. rs. Wm. Higby-The Court sentence
the said Highly to pay a fine of one dollar and
costs of prosecution, and undergo an imprison-
ment at hard labor in the Eastern Penitentia-
r. for one year and six months.
Com. as. MicAae3 ConRer-The Court SEN
I%tence the said Conner to pay, a fine of one dol
liar and costs of prosecution, and to undergo
an Imprisonment in the County Jail for 80
Hdays.
IN THE COMMON Pleas.
Saturday morning Dec. 8, the case of A. b.
ISmiM rs. Nm. s.. Do5bans and HIM. Gibson
was taken up. This was an action in trespass
brought for the recovery of the value of a GER
tain horse and harness, being property seized
by w. S. Dobbins, Sheriff, in June, 1850, in
possession of David Smith, and taken in exc
%cution as his property and sold at the suit of
said VIM. Gibson. The Jury return a verdict
for plaintiff for the sum of $lI9 10.
Elwell and Adams for plaintiff, Overton &
Mercur for Defendants.
Gee. Fritcher rs. Albert Tozer,, ,impleoded
wiM Almerin IL T~ozer.--This being an appeal
from a Justice of the Peace in an action for
debt. Defendant, Albert Tozer, put in a plea
of payment. The Jury return a verdict for
defendant. le.taa eL-- " .a
-Mercur and Garfield for plaintiff, Patrick
and Baird for defendant. = q d..
-Addison Beais rs. 1mqnda Beals-Libel in
Divorce. On motion of Mr.. Parsons the Court
decree a divorce to the said Addison Beals
from the bonds of matrimony. l,
In the matter of Thomas Morehead, an i'll
solvent. Being an application for a discharge
under the Act for the relief of ~insolvent debt
ors. After the usual oath, &C., applicant was
discharged.
Dec. 18th being the day fixed by the Rules
of Court for the acknowledgement of Sheriff's
deeds, and the Sheriff being absent, the Court
thereupon make an order for the acknowledge
ment of the same on Saturday the 18th inst,
at the coming in of Court in the afternoon and
direct that the order be noted upon the Record.
John L. SaHcrRee and otherS rs. Guy Tocer.
Action in ejcctment for the recovery of some
sixty-hve acres of land owned by Thomas Mar
shall during his lifetime, until a certain time
urnviouS tn hiS 1nafh ha poola n dad for tho
same to the defendant, Tozer. The plaintiffs,
j. F. Satterlce and wife, z. Hill and wife,
Edward Marshall and others, collateral heirs
of the said Thomas Marshall, seeking to recov-
err the same, alleging that Marshall was at the
time Of making the deed &" An habitual drunk
ard" and by an inquisition was so declared,
and the proceedings SO stood upon the record
at the time of making the deed.
At the time of going to press, the cause is
not concluded.
Elwell, Adams and Patrick for plaintiffs,
Mercur and Ovcrton for defendant.
Edarard Orerton rs. YIN. H. Bel, George
". HoHenback and Jdcob Hdnd.-A rule was
entered May 10, 1855, to show cause why a
Writ of Restitution should not be ordered to
re-instate Israel Smith in the possession of pro-
pcrty taken by plaintiff. The application was
considered at September Term, before Judge
WILNor, and the opinion was given in vacation
The case being an important one, and exciting
considerable interest, we have procured the
decision of the Court
OPINION OF THE CorRr.
Upon a careful examination Of the authorities cited in
the argument of the above rule. it clearly appears that
Israel smith Is estopprd not only from controvcrting the
absolute character of the plaintiffs title, but from setting
up in himself a possession inconsistent Herewith.
Smith. having affirmed the absolute title of Bell & Co.
in order to defeat Overt0n in the collection of his debt. i.
eStopped in law from setting up against Overton, the pur
chaser of that title, anything whatever, by which to i'm
pair or injuriOuSly affect it. Otherwise the law would en-.
able him to practice n double fraud-to affirm the absolute
title of Bell & Co., when Overton is pressing by execution
the collection of his debt, and afterwards to deny the alb
soute character Of such title in the hands of Overton.
Again, upon the well settled principles of equity, Smith
Is estopped from remembering by equities a title in the
absolute and perfect character Of which he gave the plain.
tiff reason to coniide. Lewis W.. Carstairs, w. & S. 2O7
Previous to his purchase, Overton was in the vigilant
pursuit by execution of the property of Smith. who dis.
claimed all interest in the land. and affirmed Bell * Co.
the holders # the legal title, TO be the absolute owners
This he solemnly declared under his hand and seal, by the
agreement of the 18th of April. 1919, wherein he agree,
to manage the business on the premises as the employee
of Bell & Co., ut a fixed rate of compensation. This agree.
ment was shown by Mr.. Elwell the attorney of Bell 4 Co.
to MIR. overton, as evidence of the true relation existing
between Bell q Co. and Smith. Under such circumstan.
ces, Overton becomes the purchaser from Bell & Co. of the
legal title, absolute on its facc-and Smith now seeks TO
falsely his previous acts and declarations-tn deny the alb.
ISOLATE title of Bell d Co., and u set up in himself an ex.
isting equity-the right to the land on the payment of
certain advances. to secure which he alleges Bell & Co.
held the legal title. This he cannot he permitted to do.
either in a court of law or equity, if there be anything left
of the doctrine of %cstoppel.
1t IS claimed i'll support of the rule, that the possession
OF smith was legal notice of the equity he now sets up.
and that Ovcrtpn therefore does not stand in The position
Of a purchaser without notice. The case of Scott VS.. Gal
lagher, III ;. q L. 333, is directly against this doctrine
IT Is there ruled. that the bona fidc purchaser of the legal
title Is not affected by secret trust of which he has not
had direct, express and positive notice and that the pos