Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-04-03
CEREBRAL DOCKET

No. I7. John P. Jackson, Administrator Of Hugl
Moore, deceased v. Abraham o. Brannin Assignee etc
Error to the Superior Court Of Cincinnati.
Ranney, j..
NJ. having life estate in certain lots in the cty of Din
olnna leased them for terms which had not expired Al
the time Of his death In one OF the leases he covenant
cd with the lessee or his assignee to pay at the expra
on OF the term for certain buildings which the latter
was authorized to erect upon the lot. Held That IN
executrx might lawfully settle and allow the
sum to cover the value Of the buildings and the
arising TO the the one case and reasonable sum
to the remainder man for confirmation Of the leases In
the Others and that such properly charpesbe
to, and might be collected from the estate when Ii an
peared that such arrangements were
to the estate, and were entered into In good faith
Judgment affirmed. 4-
No. "a Executors Of William swarts v. Peter
Lest Error to the District Court Of Marion county.
Scott, j.: .'-. 2 ~
"A mortgage Of real estate 10 regarded In euuiv ss
mere security for the performance Of Its condition of
deeaBance, and where that condition s the ~
debt, the tesurity Is regarded an incident Of te
debt, which, by The legal transfer Of the debt payses
with 1t to the assignee. 5f
30, several prommissory poies are ony seeur.
ed by mortgage the assignee Of one OF the notes 40 se
cured becomes equitably entitled to q)ro rain mar
tcipatlon in the benefit OF the security unisss' ihe
agreement ofthe parties to the assignment be other
wise. .,. ...- ..-..- N1'-
3 But, where the mortgage retaining the legal in
teres In the mortgage subsequently, enters satisfaction
and discharge upon the record Of the MORTGAGE sunb
discharge operates to cancel the record OF the
s purchasers and mortgages in GOOD
fait1, and witsnt notice; and against tSam he ~
slguee Of the note cannot assert his equitable isn
Judgment Of the District Court affirmed. =
No. 20. The Port Clinton Railroad Company v The
Cleveland q Toledo Railroad Oompany,
No. 1i2. The Trustees Of Portlsnd Township v Tho.
Cleveland G Toledo Railroad Company.
Reserved In District Court Of Ottawa. ia
Gholson,J,; -
/. II in any case It would be competsnt to,
decree the specific performance Of contract o
railroad requiring, as 1t would, personal acts nyoy-
ing the continuous exercise OF skill and judgment under
varying circumstances and emergencies in could onIv he
n case where the demand for the exercise of such
power was stringent and the circumstances sucb as IN
aut horze the Court in making an order to limit lis M
aon ~ 70 tme and 70 define, to some proper and rea
sonabe extent the mode and manner In which II should
be obeyed. ..'77 - '10N'0
3 The ?. O. Railroad Company leased It's franchises
and road for the term Of nnstyni years renewable
forever, TO the o. 7. Railroad Company which waaa
company created by the consolidation OF the T. N
Railroad Company aud the junction Railroad Companv
Tne consideration was Ia the form OF ns
20 assume debts, to fnih the road and to oper
ate and manage the road In such manner Al would
forfeit or endanger the franchises and corporate rights
OF the lessor. It appeared that only small sum M
money had ever been paid In by the of tbe
X q. Company, which had never been expended: IN.
the cost OF any work the road previous 10 The sas
had been betrayed BY the Junction COMPANY and Sst
this work had been DONE and the Organization Of The
Oompany made under the general Law Of the State
TO enable the Junction Company to extend its line in
manner Its charter did not permit. Held; That The
o. Company was not entitled to specific performSucs
OF tne covenant IN Its lea 9, to operate the road
.. where township through which a railraod misbt
be located was by statute sauthoriEed TO subsc,hs ~
the stock OF said raroad-Held that while undcr sncb
an authority the contract Of subscription might
terms anu conditions affecting its subject matter, and
the consideration to be paid and received the maxim
subscription aAd paying money for stock, coud not
be made consideration TO sustain contract p;vin,
township acclaim TO control the general conduct Ar dis
creton Of the directors OF tho railroad eompan1 a.
matters involving the pecunIary interesta of tba o
pany ana its stockholders to an amount far ercesJi
the subscription OF the township. It was not the intsn
In ,s Ur INV 70 authorize the township to OBJ
company for the time being, to limit the nower aJ
discreton Of future borsds Of directors. "N00
L. where two railroad companies in their agreement
Tor consodauon inserted On article provide far h
completion and running Of the route OF one OF tbe COM
panias, and the directors Of the consolidated
failed to comply with such provisions-Held that II The
duty thus created was owing to all the stockhoders one
OF the stockholders could not sustain an action sgans
the drestors TO enforce compliance therewith ana
that theduty owing to class of stockhoders bay
ing in to the matter an interest right distinct
refusal or neglect on the part OF the directors to dis
charge the dly, ust bring before the court moi oniv
The direcorsSf the company, but the two olasses Of
Judmentin each case for defendant. ii. "a 1
NO. 20, The. trustees o. Perrysburg Township W
cleveland & Toledo RaflSosd Company The prlpcples
upon which NOS ~ and Aia were decided apply to this
Judgment for defendant. ~
No. l46. Harter, Trump, Wikideli & 90. v. Samuel
Taggartb executors. nhN itf9fil Z
Error % District Court of Wayne county. y;
Peck, Oh. J.: r.y llt' Tds
The creditor OF person deceased exhibited hs claim
against the estate OF his debtor to the executors for the
tinct purpose Of having IL allowed by the execntoys
as valid claim against the estate: and the executor
thereupon distinctly refused to allow the claim and
Held: ----''
lst, That such refusal bs theezecutou was, rsiso
Ton OF the claim within the meaning OF aec 90 Of the
sct to provide for the settlement OF the estates of de
ceased perapps o. O. Stat, $500; although no formal
demand yas made at the time that the executors should
tndorse their allowance upon said claim and that the
six months Limitation specified In said section, com
menced 70 rpn fromthe date Of such rejection.
ID The Last clause Of SEQ, 90 Of said cot is not re-
but IN add o the fst and creates oonstruc.
taee reasd for the benefit OF the creditor when the
executor, etc., upon such presentation, valves or
evades definite action thereon !, 7hs.. iio In1l
Judgement Of District Court affirmed. ass 5s,6
Superior Court Of oihcinnati Dscree modified and
hsa simnH osa iMorIoM DooKETg 4s 10 sa
s Mo- las. clement Beatdsley v. Phllo Wells. Leave
to flo petition Al error refused. 7lgs q ssNif
\ sNq. l2es sSsW. smith A. 90. v. shropAre& q Savage
ct al. Leave given to Ale petition In error. u 4, -
y Nos 13O. John0 Telford ct al W Edward L. Crane
Leave Glysnsts docket reserved case. ~ AH'2s51N
su No. t2l.g Samuel n. Moleynauxy James Wilson 4
Go Leayeto file petition in error refused, .sel5,Ui
NO. 132! John AuketeI ct al. v. Waldo Y. Converse
Of al Leave to e amended petition refused and case