Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-04-11

At az and twelve months In full sasaction OF said
judgmsnt living to @. an entire month within which to
procure SAID notes. No books or notes were ever
csivsd under thsse agreements by. W. On demurrer TO
That the agreement for stay OF execution not having
been incorporated 10 the Judgment entered upon the
faoord. did not stop w from Issuing execution upon
the Judgment at any time, nor authorize court Of
equity 10 enjoln It's collection from the surely And
ttion giving for collecting and delivering books
and for the procurement OF notes with surety such
q WOULD ipiaw, discharge tbe surely in the jdds-
judgment reversed, demurrer t, petition sustained, and
No. i0O. KeiIon Haser V. William Reed. In error
tethe District Count Of Belmont county.
| A. and D.. entered into written contract that A.
should subscribe and pay for 10 shares Of stock and D.
snoud pay him the par value thereof, with per cent.
on he money paid by B. In three years from the
h =. e n5st lns!ament. A. subscribed and paid for
est psd by the company the first iustament paid BY
A. shortly before and a. the expiration OF the three
blank power Of attorney thereto for s transfer
but not signed, and ed transfer il 70 b. and DO
manded payment b. refused to accept and pay for the
stock In an action by A. stating In hla pstition sad
contract his performance, and Offers and present read
ness 10 ihs rtock and asking udament aasnst
B. forits par value and nteeS-verdict and iudgment
for plaintiff. 4n
Held ~
n h0E
proved an actual transfer Of the stock, or an execution
Of the power Of attorney that offer with the ability
there and then to perform was sufficient to ente him to
recover. j..
3D. Thstin such time Is not of the essence Of
/ the contract ,t-
3D. That the facts Of the case being such M tn have
aathorzeda decree for specific performance the defend
ant notask an order or excepting fur that cause the
oaission 70 order transfer OF the stock the defend
ant, on payment Of the judgment for the price Of the
a stock did not invada.e the Judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
NJ n
barney Error to the District courtof Erie county.
G. Jo., beiog indebted to B. in sundrv sums. evi
BY four prcmssory notes. which were all DUE two
of which made by The arm alone and the other two
by the hIm ana surety, delivered to B. number Of
collection, and when collected apply on their notes
less all necessary expenses Of collection"
The amount of hs claims thus placed in the creditors
hands was insufficient discharge either the two notes
signed by the surety the unsecured notes and the
former were the elder debts. After had more
than hall OF the claims, and whilst still proceeding 10
make further collections thereon, he Commenced Two
several suits on the same day; against a. dr Co. on
noes executed BY them alone and the other against
them and the surety upon the other two notes. On the
same day b. directed his attorney to apply the MONEYS
which had been collected upon the notes sgned by The
trm alone; and promised to send him statement Of The
amount ior that purpose No appropriation of the suma
collected was In fact made by OF credis on
ne notes until after the suits were
aud u by his petitions 10 each case demanded Judgment
the whole amount Of the notes sued upon e. y o.
requested B. apply the then collected
aforesaid towards the payment the notes 10 which their
surety was pary ,refu ed o but said he would
i'd Apply an suen collections upon the unsecured notes,
- which he afterwards did, After this, 90. cred
u, in the action to which their surety was party setting
the facts and asking to have the applied as
,e credits in that suit The District Court upon ths state
Of facts refused appropriate the payments and render
ed udg mt In that action against the defendants for The
at full amount OF the notes in suit. N
Held-That 10 sorenderlng judpn eut The District
a Court did not err.
~ Judgment affirmed.
worth and wife, Error to the District Court Of HamlI-
l. ton county.
BRMKERHoPF ]. Held
Il lst. Davenport ". Sovil. O. o. st. R. $50 and CLAW
SC ton Free 10 o. st. R. 544 followed apd approved
lc I'd. In purely equitable and not cocniEable in
sought on the ground Of mistake to reform and norrs
agreement for the conveyance Of real estate and be
correcting Of the mistake involves change Of posses.
son no disturbance OF Investments made BY The Marty
against whom the correction is sought and leaves ihe
enjoyment OF the property to go harmony with the
prior sc oi 'ne interest the lapse Of time ap
mmtaons, will be reckoned only from the time Of the
be discovery Of the mistake.
No. %. Nicholas Goshorn and Lorenia Goshorn w.
John b. Purcell In error to Superior Court OF Gin.
10 cinnat
,el GuoLsoNJ J.
"a In 1928, the widow Of O., having fee simple es
tate In land Joined with her husband in deed intend.
ing convey her estate to K by mistake her name was
omitted in the granting clause Of the Decd In 1857 ihe
General Assembly passed act authorizing the courts
IN to correct such mistake in the deed Of married wo
though occurring before the passage Of the actHed
70 that the provso Of section 49, Article Of the Oops
tion, authorized such an enactment.
" Judgment affirmed
4 No. l4O. Henry stoddard v. Charles D. Smith ard
! others. ~
In error to the District Court Of AugaIze county.
Land scrip certificates, for money paid BY s. vero
under the act Of Congress of May e3d 1928 IT,
s. Stat vol 4 2o6) to A., b. and c., minors and IN
trust for the other heirs Of S. The cercaes were No,
assgnable on their face, and were payable In ands the
Sc following note was appended to the certacates The
endorsement to be executed by" (L) "gusran of said
ce heirs The certificates endorsed by A. b. O. and H.
guardian o. said heirs were used by L. and his partners
to in the purchase Of lands, and the title taken by one
OF the partners, for their common benefit The parners
agreeing respectively to pay L. their portions Of The
amount oI the eercatesn money. In proceeding BY
est. charging said laLdc He'll
LIST. That L. had no authority, as guardian Of A., B.
and o dispose Of or transfer the interest Of the other
ga That tnasmuch the act of Congress REQUIRED the
to be Issued to the heirs g. being issued 10
certain OF the heirs for themselves and the oer heirs
the heirs to whom so delivered held the certificates for
the benefit Of all the heirs and had right to appropf
ate or dispose Of the interest OF the Other heirs
"A 3D. The interest Of the plaintiffs Appearing upon ba
face Of the certificates L. and his associates took the
same with notice and the title to the lands procured
ny Judgment affirmed.
John B. Hymer v. Reuben Sargeant
=, Error 70 the District Court Of Cermont county
l. sale, by constable OF rtyseized iu execu
On uoni pending trial. under the statute Of the rqht
thereto befores Justice OF the Peace will not oust he
Jurisdiction acquired by such Justice, but he may pro-
ceed 70 hna hearing as II such sale had made
Where such trial set for the day preceding that
xedor the SALE and the Justce, for causes sasacory
him. continued the hearing until the succeeding day
the cause may still proc ed though not terminated until
after the sale. ~
lrhe proceeding before the Justice Is summary ONE
ana not tnabe by jury but the party at whose In.
stance such Jury was impanneed cannot complain that
= 1t was submitted to them. -- '1'
a. The Justice in such proceedings has no authority
TO render Judgment in favor Of the claimant for as
property but as such Judgment could do no possible in
jury to he plaintiff in execution the constable such
q Judgment cannotb be reversed on error. I'II
A. Judgment affirmed.
No. lS9 Moses A. HUFF ct al. v. The State of Ohio
. Error to Fayete Common Pleas.
. Judgment affirmed
a. No. ll5 Samuel West ct al V. Calvary Morris
Trustee etc. Error to the Superior Court Of Cincin-
y, Judgment affirmed.
ID No. 4Ol Henry Harrington v. The State Of ohio.-
~ Error to Hamilton Common Pleas. -
pe Judgment reversed, and cause remanded
VA MOTION DOCKET