Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-01-30

ute oonfers on the local directors OF sub are
TO be exercised IN liberalization 10 the paramount au
thohty Of the township board Of education. v
yudemaAt affirmed. gHi III
| No.U. VIM. o. Hall v. Philip Owen. Error TO
District Court OF Brown county. Action for specific
preference Of contract for sale Of real estate. SEQ
| By the court. Held: d1 s3W lit
lat. The action may be brought either In the county
whore the lana Hes or m that where one 81 the defend
a. r:sa.' Tsss DECREE for ssoso performance on tn,
part Of the defendant without anding, or requiring
performance on the part Of the painG his part Of
the agreement IL erroneous. '.7i r. H.. q, .tii
| Judgment reversed. ,''' ii".
No. 90. 0atharlne Stevens OF al v. Benjamin Hart.
ley. In error to Court Of Common Pleas Of Seneca
oonnty. ReseEyedin In District Court. '
GholsOn, T.; r. r4-
1. Tho petition In an action aqainst an exssuor upon
bond gwen by him as Tesduafy IeVatee fer the pay.
nsnt s all the debts and lega.iss Of The tssatOr undo!
Of estates Of deceased persons passed 2sd March, l8io
need not show OF The claim 10 the execu
tor for allowance rejection other matter 70 allow
the bringing OF the aotion specified In the osh section
OF the same act. ~ - =, T-...It.a, .....-ss .
That In such an action the claim not having been
previously established in an scsn against the executor
13 Of the oode to the admissbnity Of party as VIII
ness applies, and the plaintiff 10 net competent wit
ness to testify to transactions between him and the
Judgment reversed.
No. SO. James b. gtanbury v. Luther sillsn. Mo-
tion fora new trial Reserved In the DiStrictoourt Of
Licking county.
Per Curiam A County Auditors deel, daily executed,
70 the purchaser OF aui sold for taxes under the act Of
aSGno ~ ~ dexa snsseI sss e. ia ,s sec. ~
10 given In evidence Without preliminary proof in re-
spect to the regularity OF the listing advertsng and
sale Of the lands That statute throws upon the party
seeking avoid the deed tho burden Of showing ths,
the proceedings psr to ito execution were not IN CON
ormiy to Law. The phrase, sdeh deed" IN that stat
ute, equivalent to the words, "which desd' In the
sixth section Of tho act tot March H. 1891 "for the sale
Of anas forfeited to the atae f.r the nonpaymsnt Of
taxeg" @ Chase'e Stat. 1851 1arHerv 1oeyna1, II
There are other questions In this case, which, as they
may not arise again, not now decided by the Court
New trial ordered, and cause remanded.
NO. A. Jacob lsh v' John Crane and others. Re
served in the District osurt Of Wood county. 4 .
buthn, O.J.i '| N
A. owning tract Of wild land In remote part Of the
State, by letter requested b. living near the lands TO
sell the same for him at price named in the letter. D.
In accordance with request, shortly after the DEAN
OF Az hut without notice OF the event to ehet party
sold the lands teC at named part paid In hand
and tho balance To be paid on receipt Of deed from A
and gave O. possession OF the land o. afterward paid
balance Of tho purchase money to the guardian Of the
herl Of A. on demand thereof O. continued In pes.
/ session and made permanent improvements upon the
land Afterward the heirs Of A. brought action to
recover the lands; and o. thereupon commenced this
suit against said heirs to enon their proceeding in such
| aetion-Held
statement OF facts reduced to writing and signed BY the
counsel Of the respective parties such statement cannot
be Withdrawn the reracted by either party
| except by leaye Of Court on cause shown.
I'd. That the death Of the principal Ia revocation OF
an existing agency, by operation Of law. " IL :.
3D. That bona fde transaction by an agent, not
necessarily to be done In the of the principal az
deed, etc. but matter IN pads merely done after the
death Of the principal but In ignorance Of the event.
and within tho scope Of The nevertheless valid