The Tiffin tribune. [volume] (Tiffin, Ohio) 1848-1859, 1856-07-04
Court Of Common Pleas. - June
Term.

Defenseso upthat Plaindnrhad been employed
for the two preceding years at s35, per School
months and that for tho year in controversy the
employment was mere continuation.
The Plaintiff contended that prior to the com.
meucement he had informed members of the
Board that he must have more wages than had
been paidhim before. And that he was employed
without fixing any price, and therefore claimed
what he might prove his salary worth.
Verdict for Plaintiff $50 5O.lOO. Motion for
new trial, by Defend "a overuled, and Judgm't
on verdict
w.R&H. Noble for PlFT., Hall a Pillars for
Deft
G. Y Person ps w. c. Hedges.AAction for
purchase money for alot in Tidin.
Defense set up that Plaintiff had no title for the
lot, and thatit wasnow claimed by L. A. Hall, and
suit pending by him for It's recovery, 1t was ad.
mitted that Def't. was in possession and had not
been ouated. Plaintiff proved tender of Deed
according to contract, Aud defendant offered to
prove the pendancy of the suit by Hall, claiming
the lot, which was objected to and overruled by
the Court, holding that the mere pendancy of a
suit for the lot was no cause Of defense. That he
must 6rst be ousted ofpossesson before thus de-
Tense would be avaihble.---Yerdict for Plt'f SS2,
So. WPr& H, Noble for Plt'R Hall & Pillars
for Dert.
Jacob spanglo Ds. Fuhklin s7angle,--Ih this
action Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is his son,
that in 1853 he conveyed his farm worth $4,000,
and also leth him have all his personal property,
being about $500 being all the property Plaintiff
had He claims that Deft agreed to pay him
$4,000 on farm, and is indebted to him for the per-
sonal property in $780, That Dert had also
contracted to let him one of the houses
and 6 yard and garden on the farm du.
ring life, and also to pay him 1 of all grain
and hay raised on the farm. That DePt
had not fulfilled his part of agreement.
Defense set up that no consideration
was to be paid for the personal, II beng
a gift. That no other consideration was
to be paid for the land, only the / of the
grain and hay, and that DeFt had full.
filled. Verdict for Deft.
w. P. & H. Noble for Plrf. vii.
son and Hall and Pillars for DeFt.
This case exhibits rorcibly The folly of
any mans giving away his property to
his children until he is done with il him.
self. The Plaintiff is left without even
means enough to appeal his suit.
George W. Hollis Us. Amanda Gale,
et' al,-Action brought to recover the
undivided half of 80 acres Of land in
Adams Tp, which he alleges was entered
by Jas. Hollis now deed, with money
furnished equally by him and Joseph,
and for their joint benefit. That they
afterwards jointly occupied and improved
it. 1f
Defense set up was by Henry w. John.
aon, an infOsit, who answered by Guar.
dian claiming so acres of the land under
the will of Joseph Hollis.
The Plaintiff the matter alleged in the
petition.
Held that this constituted resulting
trust in favor Of Plaintiff for one half Of
the land. Judgment accordingly.
Griffith and Bartlett for PlpG. W.P.
q H. Noble, for Deft.
David Beard Is. Paul Brong.-Aotion
brought to recover small COVE Of land
SO feet wide at one end aud running to a
point atthe other.
The Plaintiff claims that when the
lands were sold to the Defendant by the
original proprietor, a survey was made
and corners established and lines actually
run and marked as described and claimed
in his Petition. He also relied upon the
recognition Of the lines claimed by him
for some 5or 10 years by occupancy, &c.
by all parties interested. asa circumstance
tending 70 establish their correctness.
Defendant claimed the other point,
being to where he now occupies, as the
points and lines established BY the Sur
vey' and offered evidence tending to proye
ghis' The evidence, however, on this
point was conflicting. Judgment for
Deft., but set asidean new trial granted
W.. P. q H. Noble aud Pain for Plrf
Hall d Pillars and Bartlett for Deft.
lEqy-UBuek md praob > A.ttls