Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-03-21
supreme Court of Ohio.

bTN OfflClAu hEtOhrs
bdt TUESDAY, March 10, 1861.
Hon. WIN. v. Peck, Hon. VIM. Y. Gholson and Hon. ia
cob DrinkerhoG, judges.
r5tI L. ]. CRrTcHrrELD, Reporter.
GENERAL D0oKET.trE "
No. l27. John Hutchins v. The Cleve,nd Mutual
Insurance Company Error to District Court OF Trum
bull county.
an snplieaticn fOf INSURANCE on building against
Are which by reference made part Of the policy con-
tained nterrogatories and answers, among them
the following "Do you the land7 Is II upincumbered
or otherwise7 Yes" Previously to the issuing the
policy, the insured had executed mortgage deed TO
third person. to secure large sum OF money which deed
was then held by such person. and shortly thereafter du-
y recorded. Held That the unrecorded mortgage was
40 ncumbrance within the mesnng and Of the In
quiy, and the insured not having disclosed n hs an
the exs fence OF such mortgages the policy was voin
NJ. Hi. Henry philiy V. David A. Saunders and
others.
Reserved in the District o0ur. Of Warren county.
In Is4s A. was in possession Of lands under contract
Of purchase from B., the owner, made valuable i'm
provemens and In le4o executed deed Of mortgage Of
the land in fee with covenants Of warranty to O. 10
cure the payment 10 her Of his note for 5000 in 1885,
In 1851 A. received deed Of conveyance In fee Of the
land from B.; and In 1854 executed like mortgage to
d. to secure to him the payment Of his note Of Sle0O.
The deeds were all duly recorded; the mortgages
paid and the lands insufficient to satisfy both mortgages
Held:
lat That the mortgage to O., as between the parties,
conveyed TO o. the legal possessory right Of the
ana his equitable interest in the lands.
Cd That upon the execution Of the deed by B. to A..
the fee Of The land 90 conveyed to A. by estoppei srs
ing from his prior deed Of warranty in fee to enured
o. who, between the parties. thereby became vest
ed with the fee.
I'd. THAT the obligation Of estoppel became to O. a
imminent Of tile adhering to- and transmssibe with
the land, and obligatory upon the grantees Of A., as
ah. That the deed to O., being recorded prior to the
execution and record Of the deed to D., was entitled to
the same respect in law and equity, against d. that
| It was entitled to against B., his grantor, y
Judgment for defendant. ~ ~ ils.-" EalA
/ aholson ]. dlssented.
No. I3I. Charles Marsden ct al '. Horace ". soper.
Error to the District Court Of cuyahoga county.
whether warrant of attorney 10 confess Judgment
upon negotiable note annexed to the note aud forming
part OF the instrument and which purports to
authorize the confession Of judgment In favor Of any
due Ia legally operative 70 authorize the confession OF
ludsment In favor Of endorses OF such noteQusrei
But judgment on such note be entered on comics.
Of endoree Of the note; and, at the same term, the
defendants inhs Judgment apd move the Court tc
yaeate the !qgment and afterwards voluntarily eonsen
not be afterwards allowed error, to aege want o
ursdcon In the Court Of the person Of the defendants
No. IL. Robert Bentley ct al v John DOrcas ct al
| Error to District Court Of Richland county.
GHoLsoN J.
Ian appeal bond which comprises substantially the
requisites Of the statute will be held void because
departs in one or more particulars from the exact words.
Gardnerv Woodyear, Ohio, ITO. and oraighon v. Hsr
den, 10 Ohio st. Rep.i57p approved and followed.
aesinst ssvei poruous and an appeal taken under the
acs Of March ga 1857 oil the persons against whom thu
decree rendered uniting In the appeal bond with two
others Is surees and In the District Court the decree
was against one only Of the persons prosecuting the ap
| peah and In favor II the othersr Hello
That the appeal bond was, nevertheless, valid and
binding ona the parties uniting therein and that they
the default Of the party agalost whom the decree wai
rendered in the District court. "a yxEnsy n. gnn
When psalsn !slsis,o Ne c9py @ ?. an l1ssru-
not state whether the copy be true one and calls fol
proofs not IN form substance. denial Of material
allegation under the code. - 49,
1Rhe o. O. q O. Railroad Company v. Samuel II.
hartman. In error to the District Court Of Crawford
County. eA
iss' That whsrS person patchssed ticket and took
as passage upon train and after the train had started
upon the road and he had given up his ticket to the
ducor, he could not atan intermediate station by virtue
o his subssing contract leave such train while in the
reasonable performances OF the contract and claim seat
| upon another train.
scribe reasonable conditions to the admltance OF way
upon their freight tfans aud thst PAYMENT
* fare their office agents, or procuring ticket prior
taking passage on such ran,was not an unreasonable
| M. That an offer to pay the fare to an employee
on the train unauthorized to receive the same Is
cer to the Company and, In such case. does not en-.
title the person to place on the freight uain pas
1h That iserror toipsruct Jury that in proper
case for exemplary damaged they should know that n
case the party recover less than S0O he recover
his cost In the action. ,
Il Judgment reversed.
No le. Jc.eph pef.ees Ex'r cf the viii Of Jud.on