The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1865-01-27
recent Decisions Of the sun...
Court.

oorneiius \: Buck, Respondent w. G. Gr,n.
Lewis ct al, Appellant.
When the plaintiff in an action "a ,.,.-.-
t t possession of personal property ioins IN
sae Undertaking which he is required to give
.Ur the prosecution of the action and retnrn of
the property, if a return thereof be adindrad
NC - pO1no thereby to the same extent "a sny
christopher CARL VS.. Jackman Gardneroho,
SYLLABUS
Al Term OF the Dl4lrict Court an entrv MAJ.
mace IN the records of said Court in the fol- fol-
lowing language: Al 'ne ioi-
"GGhristopher CARL vs. Jackman e. Gardner
and Canute Anderson The canse bav;no. hnen
brought before the Court and snbm;,tad seen
18th day OF April 1865, after aronmeut o III, sne
motion of plaintiff to correct The reoor dpo ~
this Court and set aside the return 49,, ~, ~
execution, and the same having been div CON.
sidered by the Court it has ordered that The
same be denied" 'no' 'ne
form and no appeal having been taken there ~
from decisive of the motion. 'noio-
a similar order subsequently entered in the
records OF the Court by the Clerk without anv
order to that effect was unauthorized and in.
operative to revive the plaintiff 5 right of
appeal. VI
John McCue, Appellant, vs. David Smith and
=. Ann Smith, his wife. Respondents.
SYLLABUS.
A. s., one of the defendants, made a settle
ment and claim, udder the act of Congress of
Sept 4, 18A1, known as the Presumption Law.
Prior to proving up the claim and purchasing
the premises. j. M, the plaintiff, loaned the
said defendant sum of money, to pay the pur.
chase money, costs, and incidental expenses.
and it was then verbally agreed between the
said defendant and the plaintiff, that the said
sum should be charge and lien upon the
premises, when purchased to secure the repay-
ment of said sum, with Interest at the rate of
twelve per cent. per annum, in one year; the
said A. 8. to waive the benefit of redemption
and in default ofpayment of said sum, with the
interest, within the time aforesaid, the premi-
ses to be sold, and the sale to be absolute; the
terms OF the agreement and the charge upon
said premises to be evidenced by note and mort
gage, or other memoranda in writing as the
parties might be advised, wien the transaction
should be consummated; but in either case,
the money advanced was to be and remain 8
lien and charge on said premises; and the du-
piicate OF the said defendant A. s., to be de-
posted with the plaintiff, to obtain and hold
the patent as additional security.
After the purchase Ofthe land, the said A. s.
evidenced her agreement In writing, in the
form of promissOry note and executed
memorandum in writing in the form Of mort
gage, and. by separate instrument waived
her right of redemption, and delivered her du-
plicate to the plaintiff, which he surrendered
to the Land Office, and obtained the patent,
which he now holds.
Held, That the parol agreement having been
executed, neither of the parties could object
that it was within the statute of frauds; and
having been made prior to the purchase of the
lands, was within the prohibition OF the 18th
section Of the act Of Congress of Sept. 4, 1871.
under which A. s. pre-empted the lands, and is
illegal and void and that the note and mort
gage having been made in pursuance of the
parol contract, and in performance of it are
also void. . C.. -.-I