Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-03-23
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
TUESDAY. March % 1a6.
TUESDAY, March %, 1864.
Hon. Jacob Brinkerhotf, Chief Justice Hon. Josiah
Scott. Hon. Rufus p. Ranney, Hon. Horace Wild
or, and Hon. William White, Judges

TUESDAY, March %, 1854
Hon. Jacob Brinkerhof Chief Justice: Hon. Josiah
Scott Hon. Rufus p. Ranney, Hon. Horace Wild
or, and Hon. William White, Judges.
GENERAL DOCKET.
:, No. 2se; Andrew i; Ingerson VS.. VIM. Marlow.
Error to the Common Pleas Of Wyandot county
Brinkerhof. @. j.:
the office of Sheriff Of Wyandot county. 1t was sup
posed to involve the question to the constitutional
yalidity Of the act Of April l3 1863 to enable quail
fed voters Of this State in the military service Of this
State or of the United States, to exercise the right
Of suffrage. And that question. it seems, was passed
on the court below nevertheless it dismissed the
tees Of appeal had not been entered with the Clerk
of the Court Of Common Pleas within the time pre-
tion Of the act 10 regulate the election Of State and
county officers. is. Q. 539 From the facts as thew
appear on record we are constrained to say and we
was right in dismissing the case on the grounds men
toned. We are Of opinion that the appeal" mem
toned in the section Of theact to regulate
elections, and the contest mentioned in succeeding
sections refer to the same proceeding and that mo-
tIce OF appeal to be entered with the Clerk Of the
Court Of Common Pleas and notice of the contest to
bo given TO the contesee both necessary to con-
fer upon the Court of Common Pleas Jurisdiction Of
the case and of the parties The time for the giving
Of both these notices is by the proyiso to the
teenth section Of the act Of 1858, extended to fifty
days after the election instead Of twenty as proyd
ed in the original act. But in this the notice of
the Court Of Common Pleas until some sixty days
after the election and came too late to give that court
Jurisdiction Of the case. Hence, having no case be-
upon the constitutional validity Of the act Of 1883
ion BY would be mere dcta We regret ti this
result; as the constitutional question has been
thoroughly argued before us, it is one of great pub
lie interest and its speedy determination would tend
e eaisst The pablic m mind and relieve important pub
Order dismissng case for want Of proper notice of
on I...t ~
ers; In error TO the Superior Court Of Cincinnati.
Wilder, j, Held. u CeNkl
Z. IL is competent for. the Court. on motion and
Of ajudgment wrongfully made, to be set aside and
vacated and award execution on the Judgment
2. Where, on the dissolution Of partnership, one
to the other bond with surety conditioned for the
paymentof all the partnership debts, such bond is in
s sGq Fus pn RSe bh sS Al a ssdS5 tors, have
3, Suit being brought on such bond for the benefit
s 5s%s IN inc % the Obgs and the
ligors, and Judgment rendered thereon the surety
cannot, without the knowledge or consent Of the
creditors, by an agreement with the obligee obtain
satisfaction of such Judgment without payment
thereof in full. fel fi gguHte
I 4. Any payments, made on such Judgment to the
obigee in good faith, should be credited thereon. {
Judgment modified BY reversing the order of the
Superior Court as to the $500 actually paid and in
all other things confirmed, -, ..a-.e.-.i,'ssT
.ocoo ~ ohVA w w oNu"uy uNiueu petWeen the
No. y. Day 4 Day v E. A. Munson and others
Reserved in the District Court Of Cuyahoga county
l. Under the act of February "a. 1886 ..to require
MORTGAGES Or bills Of sale Of personal property 70 be
acs taking
ised prior mortgage upon the same property is moi a
6ona fde mortgage; but constructive notice, alone,
g. The terms "ss6sequsnt mortgages in good faith y
used in the first and fourth sections OF this act Arc
to beconsrued alike in both sections the word Sub
ton Of the prior mortgage Hence, MORTGAGE not
relied within one year from the time of first filing.
will lose It's priority over subsequent mortgage TAX,
81 The construction given to this statute on the
foregoing points in Paine ct al. VS.. Mason o. ST.
X; lsS. having become rule Of property. should be
4. Where there are three mortgages, of whom the
ure to rsfe within the year; and the second 60 has
taken his lien with actual notice Of the prior one.
and has preserved his priority Of lien over the third
fcent 70 satisfy all the liens, distribution will be
made in the following menner,-To the Xird mort
gagee, so much Of the fund as would be applicable to
his mortgage after satisfying the prior lien of the
no the second, 50 much Of tho whole fund
would bo applicable to his debt after satisfying tho
H1i ts1 lien e the rs' and without reference to the
And TO tho first mortgagee. the residue.
case remandedto TO District Court for decree accord
Il Rsnney. j., having been Of counsel did not sit in
No; los; The State Of Ohio OK rel. Samuel Fosdick
Porfysburg. In Mandamus. "
Brinkerhof, U. j. Held
a. The holding In Cass '. Dillon @ o. st. r. eo7
that prior special acts of the General Xssembl,y
granting TO certain municipal, and Quass municipal
e soSsn.s sSs ss and
ton Of their roads, are not BY impcation repealed
bsthe Constititon Of 1851, followed. -'''
Y The general act Of May ., ISSs, TO provide for