The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-04-26
LAW REPO r T .
SUPERIOR COURT.

owS@sl SgSs SSs pf@ p se
aside asele Of premises which hah oSem of
taxes In 1855 after the property had been placed on
the Delinquent list, the plaintiff caled e. w Vp Hi
There was another lot taxed in the same name to q
coloped ,Ss SS'os osc S foT the other
amount, which was applied to lot listed in the name
lowing the property Of plaintif was sold and was
purchased by owen The plaintiff hsa ss1 no no hGce $ oi
coming again delinquent, as he supposed, he again
went and paid taxes upon the ether lot apd az ITO TOOK sss
until after the lapse of two years. when he offered TO
pay the amount Of taxes ana interest ho enc nt
on the payment of taxes; and the penalties allowed
back from the Treasurer the amount OF taxes paid
by him on the other lot, -,
in good faith to pay his taxes he was entitled to have
tho sale set aside for rreguarity or mistake on the
part of the officer Of the State. ,
The Court was of opinion that the officer of the
state had not committed mistake which whiiGh would mI
piainti did not avail himself Of the proper opportu
mites to inform himself as to the amount OF his
guent comes in on the last day, when in the hurry Of
business there was little opportunity Tor inquiry
rant, and unable to read the paper handed to him
The Court was satisfied that the sale was not abSo-
lutely void. Notwithstanding, however, that the
plaintiff might have, by a great deal Of care, pre-;
vented the occurrence Of the accident be might still
charge of his duty, and being thrown of his guard,
that degree OF negligence was not auributable to
urnTe MlS or oss Of s estate under the strict rules Of
law He would, however, have to pay the penalties
Rsusht Va. Black and othors--in error. Judge
Gholson Gevercd heightened opinion, The action
promissofy note. The defense was that there was
discharge by the giving Of time to the maker. To
being Informed Of the fact Of the time being given
was relied upon. The contract of indorsement was
Ohio The indorsees came to Cincinnati, and agreed
with the maker that If he would confess Judgment
stay of execution for four months This agreement
was carried into effect II was claimed the ndorser
ignorant that by the course and practice of the
Courts in Cincinnati Judgment could have been OBJ
tanned in less than four months.
tract to give time dischaged the surety independent
ment in the Courts in Cincinnati, and then any in.
qury into the facts or the law to the course of
whether 1t was made known to the parties not, and
promise made in Ignorance Of L was none the less
valid and binding. Judgment at1rmed.
Young Pomeroy vs. the Executors Of Noble.
Some interesting questions of law were disposed Of
abstract of the opinion ofJudee Storer affirming the
Indgment) until next report.
CINcISSATI AND THE ExEcUToRs OF CHARLES Nc;
MIcKES:-The City Of Cincinnati vs. +. G. Cary and
was delivered by Judge Gholson in this case ac
ton to possession of real estate devised by
Ouhs. W thc,
ment and support Of college The devise is not dis
puted, but the defendants claim prior right under
the same will to take the rents OF the real estate for
the purpose of paying legacies.
In the course of an extended opinion delivered by
Judge GhosOn he remarks that the very first clause
in the will shows that the executors were to take
cOgnzance of his real well as his personal estate,
and if they had an immediate duty TO the
of the real estate they not bound to wait the
action of the City Council If that action should be
adverse to the wishes of the testator, then there
would still be a charge and trust for those lega
tees who to be paid by the City, and also for the
annuitants In any view the Court could see no OBJ.
lection to entry by the executors for the purpose OF
receiving the rents and paying legaces and such en-
being proper il could be defeated only by showing
higher and superior right the part of the City
This could be done alone by showing that the pay
ment of annuities TO be preferred to the payment
of legacies, which had not been claimed and upon NJ
| fair construction of the will could be maintained
Until at least the time appointed by law for winding
the estate or the previous payment of the egaces
the possession of the executors ought not to be dis
turbed.
Andrew McNIicken VS.. F. G. Cary and others, ex
| ecutors of Chas. McMicken. An opinion was deliy
cred also in thiscase by Judge Gholson In the fourtl
article of the will of Chas. Nc Mcken there is gf
to Andrew McMicken in trust, in these words "Al
debts now due to me in Cincinnati, New Orleans, OF
elsewhere, by Judgment bond, note, accounts or 9th
erwise, etc"
Debts which at the date of the will had become pay
able, and then due and unpaid; 3D. Debts which
before the date of the will had been contracted to
paid, but had not then become payable and whicl
were not paid when due, and remained unpaid at tn
paid after the date of the WILL and remaining unpa
whom the testator died. In the opinion of the Cour
the plaintiff was entitled 10 the two first classes
l debts, but not to the third.