The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-03-29
LAW EPO T
SUPERIOR COURT.

Galley ys. Carey, Farron,. and others. An injune-
was before VR the Court foinStsc e. Court
could not see how tho additional showing in the
the injunction must have been dissolved. Motion
Sergeant vs Townsond. Motion to dismiss an ac-
The objection was that the words preceding the sigma
sbSi SGS You'd
Innate that Il would 6s better 70 follow the isnaqsas
BrSfrSSsr SfI T.. Mack Bro. The psiition alleges
@ o 81 Ss. q
ment to be entered this warrant and execution 70
and his store olosed, causing the suspension Of his
bunoss for several days and an injury to his credit
TO this petition there was demurrer.
Court.If the original fraud be the glst Of the
popsr eoS conduct q hs dndt IL OSns The
warrant Of attorney, does not make the subsequent
therefore, be maintained in the form brought. De-
murrer sustained.
lease before the Court on demurrer to tho answer
the question being whether new lease was received
Court held that such not to be inferred from the
execution Of the lease, and sustained the demurrer
by an SsslSnor % of defendant Under proeeedns @ to
foreclose Without making plaintiff (also amortgageel
to the answer. which was overruled. and leave given
Jones jones vs.. Ripley. The City Council desired to en-.
large Clark street. and passed order for that pur
pose, by which they condemned and took OF from
strip feet 81 feet along the line Of said street
and subsequently, order was passed for the grading
| of Council In relation to this piece Of property;
In dnSpoIing Of 9nesticp .s to the settlement n
Of this pfSpeTes es. the aRISG ey
deDce would be comparatively worthless to the party
value exeept:by It's sale to an adjoining proprietor
The case, however was one which should have caleC
Sans charge put
property as would amount to confscation, this Oour
the part Of the S city, & The court should
the demurrer, and allow the case to go to trial t
Reynolds VS.. smith and others. The petition wa
founded on an ordinance directing the grading an
same answer The defense relied on was chiefly this
street. SH om Washington street U to to ane an
the defendants aver as matter Of fact that there
Judge Gholson said that If 1t was true, as claimed
property in this way, and then seek to make an as
sessment generally on the owners Of property on a
they lid what was SsnsuthoriSed By law aW The Ge%uT
rer would be oyerrued, and issue could be taken o.
Lewis vs. VS. Smith Gilbert twas wash held in this cas-
| that where an answer in form was put in which, un
enod as dsna Il Woad be GSs e1
while motion to make 1t certain would be SUSTAINED
without proof. Judgment would be refused.
Farran VS.. Kreiger. The papers were handed y
with view to a confirmation Of sale, and the onl
question was as to the fees poundage OF the Sheri
The sale was Of lease, with privilege TO purcha,
running with the Lease, and the plaintiff himself VIZ
merely Of personal property and that the isT go
ernihs saes od rea, e%state % "nere the pia'n u
esadsa saPPEy case being within
spirit and intent, If not the strict letter. Of the sta
ute There was an equitable right to purchase whic
frequently is, and perhaps in this case was an IN
the statute might be considered real estate. I'll
Sheriff, therefore, would be limited 70 the % %nsu
in accordance with these views.
Reeves vs. Stetson. The plaintiff sues az the hold
and secured by mortgage on his property, "a certa
interest in the Spencer House property in this city
The defendant in his answer alleges that the not
for certain debts of the Oak Bridge Furnace Cc
and that that company should first be proceed'
in so% SerS e 1TH 10 ee
was not such a case Here there was but one secur
ty-one mortgage-and the plaintiff would be entitl,
arise to how the decree should be framed, as 9th
participates Charlotte Cushman among others-hI
the T bdse was to
Means VS.. The Cincinnati and Chicago Railro
Company. petition filed to subject to the payne
and Gilbert, alleged to belong to the judgme
debtor. 1t appeared the bonds ran for short peril
and were secured by mortgage. The Court did n
rule laid down being merely goods and effects II
BILE TO seizure or sale. As to question Of an alto
ney's lien in the case-a lien OF an attorney must
accomplished by possession, so far as papers of II
kind concerned to give II any force, or be found
on some specific agreement The Court was nc
debt against the Company to pay small one I
judgment creditor could not set up any claim to CT
petition and cross petition dismissed at costs Of
spective parties.