Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-01-08
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
December Term--1S83.

Hon. William Y. Peck, Chief, Justice, and Hon
Jacob Brinkerhof, Hon: Josiah Scott, Hon. Rufui
L. Ranney, and Hon. Horace Wilder, Judges. l.
j. Critchfeld Reporter.
TUESDAY, January s, 1854.
GENERAL DOCKET,
No. SO. David Van Valkenburgv Henry D. Kings
bury.
Error to the District Court of Lucas county.
Ranney j. Held:
/. The seizure of water craft, under the act t.
authorize proceedings against the same by name and
her subsequent delivery to the owner upon bond AND
security given in accordance with the 9Th section O
that act does not impair the capacity of the craft e
incur the iablitcs therein described, those aris-
ing under the admiralty laws Of the United States
in the course of her employment by the owner Gttei
such discharge.
2. Upon such liabilities and while so at large, she
may be seized and sold by any other court of cOpe
tent Jurisdiction.
3. seizure and sale in Court of Admiralty upon
abel filed for the recovery of seamens wages earned
after such discharge and pending the proceedings in
tho State Court, vests title in the purchaser supe
ror to that acquired by a subsequent levy of final
process issuing upon judgment recovered in the ac-
ton, upon which the craft was originally seized.
Raymond V. Whitney o. st. r., 2Ol, and Pugh "
Galloway, 100. st. r., 44s, examined and approved
but distinguished from this case.
Judgment of the District Court reversed, and that
of the Common Pleas affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
ScottJ., dissented as to the third proposition.
NU. OO, JOnH IONe anu uuleS lnurstOn, EN-
ecutors, ETC.. of H. g.. Phillips deceased, V. Gather
inc p, Phillips. Error to the Superior Court Of
Montgomery county.
Brinkerhof j. Held:
/. Whether an ante-nuptial contract making pro-
vision for the wife in case Of her survivorship, and
expressed to be in bar and full satisfaction Of all
such part or share of the personal estate of the hus
band which she may claim or be entitled unto by
law will operate as bar in equity to her claim
der the statute to an allowance for years support
after the death of her husband, Qnere.
y 4
operate, unless it appear that the provisions of the
contact in favor OF the wife have been fairly per-
formed.
.. In an answer under the code of civil procedure
the allegations that said contract has been valid
and subssting contract ever since the date Of its
execution, and is still valid, and subsisting con-
tract and binding on the said widow s not Sufi
cient averment of such performance and is bad on
demurrer.
No is. C. W. Phillips V. Elwe & Seely. Error
to District Court Of Trumbull county.
Peck G. j. Held:
]. Where witness in his examination in chief
testites to the existence of material fact which,
when established, is conclusive between the parties;
questions which call upon tho witness to reaflirm,
qualify or deny his statement in chief to the ex-
istence of such fact within the Just limits of a
cross examination, and it is error to exclude
them.
2. An official return duly made upon process by a
sworn officer in relation to facts which it is his legal
duty to state in it, is, as between the parties and
prves to the suit and others whose rights
sarily dependent upon it, conclusive Of the facts
stated therein, until vacated or set aside by due
course of law; but, as to all other persons such re-
turn is prid tdcie evidence of such facts and sub
ject to be disproved whenever it is offered in evil
dcncc. ..
3. But the pririty spoken of, must be such ai
would enable the person. thus concluded to maintain
action against the officer for false return TO such
process. Hence, in an action by yendee of person
al property against attaching creditor of his
dor and the officer serving the order the vendee being
party to the suit in which the order was issued and
the transfer of the property to him prior to the ema
nation of the order, the return to tho order is only
prin'G Jacie evidence of the facts stated in it. and
subject to be disproved by him. even though it should
be claimed that tho sale was fraudulent to cred
itOrs.
Judgment reversed.
Fifty more cases on the general docket, beginning
at No. 81, were called to-day.
MOTION DOCKET.
No. Il. j. S. White, admir-, ". Z. s. Turpin. Leave
granted to docket reserved case.
No. 4S. Thomas Uriov The State Of Ohio. Mo-
tion for writ of error Passed for notice of motion
No. Al. John Cawson v. The State of Ohio. Mo
ton to take case No. 25 on general docket out of il:
order for hearing. Granted.
No. As. Philip II. Kelly V. Commissioners of Sci
otto county. Leave granted to file petition in error
No. 46. Malcolm ID. Cakins ". The State of Ohio
Motion to take case out of its order for hearing
Granted.
Adjourned until Thursday morning. at 0 o'clock.