The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-07-02
Law EP O r II .



QUESTION OF DowER.-H. f. Jones vs. IL
M. Railroad Co. suit for dover, the plain
tiff being the widow Of g. W. JONES' the ior-
mer owner of the property.
The answer sot forth that the l.. M. Rail-
road Co., in the life time of G. W. Jones, by
proceeding in the Probate Court, appropriated
part of the lands out Of which dover IS claimed,
to the use Of the railroad, and that TO TINS
proceeding Silas Adkins, and others named,
mot including G. w. J.,) who were then the
owners of the premises, were parties. 10 THIS
the plaintiff demurred.
It was held by Judge Hoadey that under
proceedings to appropriate lands to the use Oh
corporations, the corporation acquired only tne
rights of the defendants, and the claims Oh
their wives to dover, in those proceedings,
taking only such title as they had, subject TO
all the paramount claims which might have
been enforced against those Defendants ana
that, therefore, the dover right OF the widow
of the previous owner, under whom ADKINS
acouired title, was not cut off by such an ap-
propriation. Demurrer sustained, ana oecree
Taft and Perry for plaintiff; A. H. Mceufy
! for defendant.
Smith aud Finch and Leggett and others. Ac,
ton for the value of certain machinery alleged
to have been sold by plaintiff to deienoants;
! S. and f. were the owners of a tract OF coal Iano
in Kentucky: and applied, as it was stated for
charter of incorporation under the name OF the
Northern Kentucky Coal Mining Company,
and with other parties who purposeo 10 pecIno
stockholders agreed they would furnish on tnetr u.
own credit such articles as were necessary W
start the business.
The principal question in the case was
whether the execution Of one of the notes IN
the individual names of Smith and Ilnch was
a notice to Powell Of the termination o. tneh
partnership business.
Judge Hoadley, in delivering the opinion,
held that it was not, and that plaintiff was en-
titled to judgment against these two defend
ants. The other defendants were not liable.
Fox & Fox for plaintiff; Ferguson Long
for defense.
Powell, Tudor 4 Co., vs. Ward and others.
Judge Hoadley also disposed of this case. A
motion for the distribution of fund in Court,
arising from the sale of property. Ward pur-
! chased from A. Mighels certain property, and
gave a note for $3.50, and three notes of 81 ,0OOy
maturing at the same time, secured by a mort
gage. The notes were purchased by Smith &
Gilbert, who having occasion to build distil-
lery, made contract with Powell who, in con-
sideration of a portion of the work done,
| agreed to take one of these 81 900 notes. AL
though, at the time, the property was conceived
| to be of sufficient value to cover the entire
amount; it had since sold for much less sum,
and the question now arises as to the proper
distribution; Powell claims he is entitled to
priority over Smith & Gilbert to the extent of
the 81 900 note; he holds on the theory that,
though they refused to endorse it, they war
ranted it in equity, so that it would be uncon-
scentious in them now to repudiate 1t.
1t has been decided that notes secured by
mortgage are payable in the order Of maturi-
ty; and when the three mature at one time,
they are payable pro-rata, if there is not suf-
ficient funds to discharge them in full. Pow
ell must be held to know the situation of the
property, and had no right to repose on the
statement of the other parties. Knowing
that two notes were retained by S. g., he
took only such an interest in the mortgage as
was proportionate to the whole amount of the
mortgage indebtedness. The fund must,
therefore, be divided into three parts, of which
he was entitled to one, and Smith and Gil
bert to the other two. AS to the $3.50 note of
which P. was not apprized, that must be post
poned to the three other notes.
Fox & Fox for plaintiff; F. Ball for Smith
& Gilbert.
In room No. /, Judge Spencer ordered a
special finding in the case of Joseph Elsas rs.
Jacob Elsas and others.
Several DEGREES were also entered up in this
branch of the Court.
The Judges will sit in general term ON We'd
nesday.
COMMON PLEAS.
THE STATE VS.. CHARLES CoOK.-The testi-
mony proceeded in this case. Rosa McCline
(now Mrs. Lawrence) and Julia Durand, were
examined and cross examined at great length.
The following witnesses were also examined
by the State: DR.. T. Wood, Harriet Sponsler,
officers Higgins and Ritter, Augustus Ifert
and DR.. M. S. Carey. The State here closed
The evidence in behs If of the defence then
commenced. The witnesses examined were
| ToL., L JaL.. I,1o IL,
VIM. Setter and VIM. Swift.
The evidence will probably close to-day.