Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-06-15
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.


TUESDAY, June 10, 1895.
Hon. Jacob Brinkerhoff Chief Justice; Hon. yosiai
Scott, Hon. William White. Hon. John Welct
9S E,a hs Rs,1s ISs'F p?y y sSspSs sSSssS CLERK o'An'
MOTION DOCKET.
No. Q. The State Of Ohio on relation Of Dayid M
Tod v. The Court Of Common Pleas OF Faihelc
county: Motion for mandamus.
l. Tbe provisions of tho 9Th section of the law Of
Congress- of March g. 1863, for removal TO the United
States District Court of suits instituted in the state
Courts, for acts done under the authority OF tne
President Of the United States during the reDeion
Is Constitutional and valid.
9. The act Of accepting surety, and suspending
jurisdiction by the State Court in such suits, rs al
act which, il refused, may be compelled Dy manda-
mus; and this Court has power to issue the writ
3. Where such suits are brought against oo,tres-
passers, IL Is not necessary that all the defendants
SHOULD Join II the Petition for Res9d Swallow
Leave TO file petition in error refused; :,
No. lO3. VIM. L. Grant A: d. Wolf Co.
Leave 70 file petition IN error ;s rStaseWa Uenrv
Holscher. Leave TO file petition in error refused
GENERAL DOCKET.
No. 50. George Dixon, Jr., v. Judson W. Cald-
well, Error TO the District Court Of Ross county.
l. bonn fide, purchaser Of land warrant for
value, who is chargeable neither with notice nor
want Of diligencoin making his purchase, after 10
eating the warrant and Obtaining patent Tor the
land located, is not in equity trustee OF tho legal
title for the true owner of the warrant although i
was obtained by the fraud Of a third person. and
transferred under u forged assignment
. For the CONVERSION Of the warrant, the legal
owner has clear right to recover its value at the
time of conversion the 90 d faith Of the purchase
beibg no defense to the legal demand.
The judgment Of the District Court, and OF, the
Court Of Common Pleas, is reversed, and the cause
reuanded to the Court last named for further pro-
no. Is. Joseph Evans v. James Anderson ct al,
T. made his will June 20, 1880, deyising all his
property his wife, and died without issue, on the
7th of July followine, sei1ed Of lands The VIII .S'
admitted to probate October = 1880; and on the 4th
Of December following. the widow of h. was deliy'
cred of q son, the child Of L.
l. Thai At the time Of executing such will, TIE tes-
taor bad no child in osse within the meaning OF the
sth section OF the act of 1874 relating to wills.
3 That the probate Of the will is not impugned by
the subsequep, birth Of the child ept that event.
by virtue of the atute, avoids the will.
s. That therefore, an action against the devlsee by
such chd, or thse in his right, TO recover the pos
session Of such real estate may be maintained with
out directly mpeaching the will by ,Ontest, ss pro-
The Judgment of the District Govt reversed, and
that of the Common Pleas affirmed
CNo. %. Willie Parker V. George StortS. In error
to the District Court Of Ross county.
Where lands are regularly and legally sold, at ju
dica sale, upon execution. or under decretsl order
in proceedings TO fOreclose mortgage, the Judgment
debtor or mortgagor cannot after the sale and before
confirmation, impair the rights Of the purchaser or
proong his own rightful use and occupation OF the
premises by sowing thereon, without the assent OF
the purchaser crops which cannot be harvested be-
fore confirmation. .t
In thus sowing after the sale, the debtor acts at
his own peril: and in case of confirmation and con-
veyance made to the purchaser. the debtor cannot,
thereafter maintain repevin against the purchaser
or his grantee to recover the crops thus wrongully
sowed,
Judgment of District and Common Pleas Courts
No. Ss. The Directors Of the Muskingum County
ln6rmary " The City of Toledo. Error, to the Dis
trict Court Of MuskiDgum county.
]. An action may be maintained by the Directors
Of a county infrmary, against city OF the second
class in another county (where the boundaries Of
such city are identical with those of township and
such township has thereb become merged in the
city, for expenses, ETC., incurred in furnishing tenn
pOrary relief to, and removing insane pauper,
having legal settlement in such city. .
Q. Such action may be brought. either in thee
ty for which the plaintiffs are lnfrmary Directors.
and where the relief was furnished or IN the county
in which the city, defendant is situated.
Judgment Of District and Common Pleas courts re-
versed, and cause renanded.
No. lO2; J. I. Way Co. Y. s. I. b. Langley
Error to the District Court Of Gallia county.
BRINKEkHOFF, q. j.. Held:
/. Where composition agreements made in good
faith between debtor in embarrassed circumstances
ana MS creQJOrS whereby Jne ueOUOT is 10 pay Ger
tain sum in hand to be distributed pro rata among
his creditors, and to give his promissory notes on
time for the balance of the first fifty per cent. OF his
entire indebtedness, and the creditors are, on the
payment of the stipulated sum in hand and also Of the
notes given in pursuance of the agreement, to re-
lease to the debtor the remaining fifty per cent. Of
the original Indebtedness, such agreement is valid
and binding in law.
2, Where, after the making Of such composition
agreement, the payment and distribution Of the
money to be paid in hand. and the giving BY the
debtor of the notes on time in pursuance OF the
agreement, the debtor voluntarily, and on his own
suggestion, executes to of his etlt0rs who is
party tn the composition agreement other notes for
the remaining fifty per cent. Of the original indebted
ness to him, and which, by their terms will become
due before any of the composition notes. such notes
given for the remaining fifty per cent. Of original
indebtedness without consideration, and, as be-
tween the original parties to them void they being
in fraud OF the rights Of other composition credit
Ors.
8, Where, in error, it is apparent from the record
technical errors intervening on the trial will not
avail TO disturb the judgment. 'l..
judgment affirmed .".
No. 90. Jacob Vernon v. Joseph Weber and 9TH
ers. Appeal. Reserved in the District Court of
Monroe county. Appeal dismissed; ~ MI.
Mitchell. Error to the Superior Court of Montgom-
cry county. judgment affirmed.
No. 106. OthO Stickney " the State OF Ohio,
Error to the Common Pleas Of Madison county.
Judgment affirmed. .2g
ectors of School District No. in Monroe township
Knox county. Error to the District Court Of Knox
,Ounty. Judgment of the District Court reversed
md that of the Common Pleas affirmed.
No further report in Nos 9O lo4, los and Ill will
be made. ... ..b-l
Adjourned until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock.