Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-02-13

the will prefcrbsd by sections As and 46 Of the SAC
regulating Wls,' passed March %, 1870 died May Lei
1852 leaving will, admitted 70 probate May 25, 1853
by the provisions Of which she disposed Of the propert
| 80 devised to her.
In an action by the heirs Of the tesator recover tn
personal estate from the executors-Held:
That the widow, by reason OF not having elected &C
cordng to the provisions OF the statute, excluded
from taking under the WILL by the provisions Of section
deceased persons passed March 2 6l0 and Of section
40 Of said Act relating to Wills" she would be entitled
| to all said personal estate "as next Of kin"
| Petition dismissed and judgment for defendant.
No. 70. John Trimble ct al, VI. N. Longworth ct al
Bill Of review reserved in Hamilton county.
Peck, J. Held:
Of proceeding in Chancery," (ohase, 1879 the oour
directed the Of giving notice to resident do
fendans, the order made must be complied with sub
santialy; and finding bv the Court that publication
has been made according to law not conclusive upoi
bill OF review.
Q. femme covert party with others to decree II
ohancery, may file bill to review 1t at any time durDt
coverture and II she Joins with others who are barred b.
lapse OF time the bill may be dismissed as to them. ant
retained to her iii appear from the record that sh
would be entitled to such review upon her separate bill
3. The disability, which under section 81 OF the act
1881 directing the mode Of proceeding In Ohancery
Swans statute, 1871, 7O extends the time for filing
bill Of review personal privilege and will not
the rights Of the persons barred by the tatute unless
the rights Of persons within the saving could not other
wise be secured to them.
T. Where a decree has been rendered against heirs
some Of whom under disability to tubjectIands de
scended to contract Of sale by their ancestor and
bill Of review Is filed by all the heirs while such dsab
y continues, but after the bar has attached to Of
them such disability will not enure to the bene1 Of those
who would otherwise be barred.
Decree set aAide az to Mrs. Murdook, Mrs. Chandler
and Mrs sampson and cause retained for further pro.
ceedngs cause also retained for further hearing upon
bill OF review to Isabella Young and those claiming
under herr and bill Of review dismissed to other com
painants.
GholsOn J,dd this case, having formerly teen
OF Counsel,
No. 90. Aipheus D. Smith v. John j. whltbeck, etc.
In erros to the District Court Of Loian county.
Sutlif, @. j. Held:
ls That in order to show forfeiture Of an unexpired
term OF leasehold estate for nonpayment Of rent the
Lessor demand Of payment Of the lessee when
due.
I'D The demand must appear to haveibeen for the pre-
else rent due and to have been made, when no place
named for payment at the most public notorious
upon the premsesi dwelling house be on the lar ds
at the front door thereof
Sd. That the demand should be made on the day the
rent falls DUE at convenient time before sunset" by
which Ia meant Immediately preceding sunset and for
su1oent space OF time for counting and paying the
money before sunset.
No. SO. Butler q Winter v. James L. Birkey, etc.
Reserved In the District Court Of Licking county.
A. became surey.for B. o., partners in trade, upon
their note, payable to D. for $4,000 upon B. conveying
to moneyed contracts, and lands in other countless
as collateral security to protect him sganst said labi
y. B. shortly after bought out C.s interest In the
partnership and agreed to assume aud pay the debt
D. and all otheIparnershlp debts B.became insolvent
suffered Judgment to be obtained by D., and execution
thereon to be levied the lands Of o. Upon petition
fled by r., judgment creditor Of against d A. &
to subject said securities held by A. to the payment
OF his judgment. O.s lands being afterward sold and
D.s Judgment paid from the proceeds O. also claimed
B. to D.-Held: y
lst. That @. having so by agreement with b. become
merely his surety upon the debt to d. although
Ing to A. the position Of principal or prior indorser
was as to said securities held by A. to regarded his
co-surety. ...r-
2d. That O. having SO paid DIS Judgment as surety
Of B., and thereby relieved A. from further liability be-
came entitled as such cosurety Of A. to said securities
payment and that os equity in regard to the seour
ties, was superior to that OF Il. l.....H.
Judgment for defendants.
No. so. Cyrus Kelly " Jeremiah Knoel. Reserved
In Wood county. Judgment OF Common Pleas affirmed
| NO further report Of the case will be made!
No. SO. j. 8. Hawkins, Administrator v, A. J. Haw
kins, Administrator Reserved in Preble county. Judg
mont Of Common Pleas reyersed No further report vii
| be made Of the case.
MOTION DOCKET.
No. As. Henry Ebbert '. The Auditor of State. Per
emptory mandamus refuIed.
No. U.s. Jane johnson by neA friend v. Jesse Fentor
s hsayS Tss,a 70 ne 5s0n IN rsa srrCr refused
petition In error refused. NJ 2
No. 49, Tho Rrie Street Methodist Episcopal ohurei
v. Simeon streeter. Leave to file petition in srro
No. o.. The City of Cleveland & Barker, Treasurer
ETC., Henry Wick. Leave given to file petition IL
| error, ..
No. SO. Alexander B. Gilbertv. The Ripley and Bra
dysvile Turnpike Company. Leave TO Ale petition ii
i errer refused. 3"
No. 81. Morris Grady v. The State Of Ohio. Writ o
| error refused. -- On. ..r .
No. ss. The City Of Newark & M. D. Brook v. L
g. Funk Bro. Leave to file petition In error granted
No. 90. George 6chilleto Y. The Merchants' & Manu-
factureTs Insurance Company Leave to hls petitio
In error granted
Court adjourned until Tuesday, February l7th at ts
O'Clock A. NJ.