Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-01-09

f Chief yqsticeILuther Day: Justices-Willia1
SCOTT. Reporter-L. ). Clitchfeld. a;,fsis1i8
| sas sst MOTION DOCKET. 5ss5fse
4 No. 81. Edmund R. Welsh v. William ChiIds Q
al, Appeal. reserved in the District Court Of Rich
WELcH.J.
L. The assienees of q Judgment. which had beel
paid % the creditor after not,ce Of The as
sgnment, filed bill in chancery against the debto
and creditor to have the satisfaction of the judg
ment which they had caused to be entered upon To,
vency of the debtor and prayed for and the hear
ing obtained decree yacatng the entry of satisfso
to them tie and choses g e paid I to him
the debtor and that the avails thereof should b,
That the
to the CREDITOR and that they are entitled to execu
tion for the balance due on the Judgment after SC
applying the amount realized by them. ,.,,rrl.s
The assignee of q Judgment. transferred t.
him to SECURE debt due from the Judgment cred;
practice at. to subject cAoses and riehts of the
Judgment btor to the payment Of the Judgment
tG Eli So
!nat the claim SO secured has become barred by linn
3. An erroneous decree in chaneery. where the
Uourt has jurisdiction, is binding between the par
g
appearance being by agreement OF parties withheld,
rne USsrt viii presume that all parties who are
properly before the Court - : az saf
:, s. Where a judgment has become dormant during
sxs'S.ion thereon e Goufs w On na dssoia s
ton Of the Injunction order execution to issue for
the balance equitably due. - .ti-,.,4 i. j.
Z Decree for defendants. M
, o NJ 40, The Pittsburgh. Et Wayne 4 Chicago
Court Of Ts Pis.s G, in
hiBss1xta BsIsssnaops IN tas DjsriSs j. asiS3 court
brakesPan on one Of its trains for, injuries sus-
famed py MN I'M collision of his train With anoth-
Sap Of tie sopsus
tor or engnee or both. of fuch other train unless
ss the Ss sd Of
an Incompetent conductor or engineer through
whose negligence the collision occurred; -
-Jndgment reversed and cause remanded.
NJ e 1eG T. Gi on aassntsa f. Sells
to the Superior Court of Franklin County.
ruling or hoidins Of an inferior court on an abb
stract legal proposition not appearing by the record
2 3, AZ answer 81 way Of defense. stating only
no, any part Of The plaintiffs cause Of action may
y W1n pc oemuTFed q, %; ai sg isa .tIs
No. % ,Aquila Jones ct al. Y. Lucinda Robinson
OF al Reserved in the District Court Of Logan
sWHIrE j.. He'd: :<eiissja5 sGibs1-Ts .usih
l. Section 50 Of the wills act of May 3. 1852, which
grovides that no Procee ting shall be had in this
this State, and which also declares that If the will
0e SsI sSde wners proved j shall be Of
as when made and proved in conformity to the for
egn are. BY the laws of this State, valid to dis
70 cases arising under former laws Of wills valid
wnere made but imperative here because not exc
aWithost deciding f that resort to the statutor,
mode provided for contesting will is necessary in
order 70 set aside or declare invalid the record in
us State Of foreign will imperative to dispose
forming to the statute in force atthe time of The
has the Pso1 nc
on that ground. be dismissed, as such suits have
). The ct Of March ao:is4s. to u amend the wills
act OF lS4O has no application to like the pres
ent arising under statutes prior to the of s4O
to the foreign law is ino eratve property situate
in this State and not authorized to be admitted to
probate and rejection of the will therein referred
70: mas reference to its probate or rejection in the
Demurrer ovsrruled and cause rsmanded to the
mo No 4s, JULIA A. RANpALl ct al. v. SAMUEL NJ.
county.
Day, e. J.. Held:
l. The finding of the Court upon issues of fact. or
a verdict Of jury, cannot be reviewed on error.
when the record does. not show that there was
finding or verdict was against the law or evidence.
:. A written assignment ofa chose in action un-
conditional on its face. in part execution of
the assignment is not conclusive evidence that the
transfer was absolute bat the contract under which
8. A verbal agreement for the sale of lands which
mas been fully performed on the part Of the vendor
is not Wb. Wysade.ed void by the Statute of F,suis
the allegstions in the petition ss required j. The
the denias and tSas the psi atid was Is
required to prove such allegatio .s-Heid:.
That Judgment rendered against such defend
cannot be reversed on error for the want of such
express denial.
s. Un petition in error to reverse a Judgment of
the District Court. Affirming a Judgment of the
Court Of Common Pleas. this Court is not bound
10 CONSIDER objections to the of the Com
David 0verholser v. Catherine Wright. Error to
the 8 District Court of Darke county.
Where father conveyed real estate to his son at
payable 70 the ftheP wtS sn
for the 81 900 took from the son receipt
In TIE following form. yiz:-
interest @ received BY me. d. o." 1.-THE sonl.
The amount mentioned in the receipt will not be
an advancement FROM father to son, but
ance payable to the father but in the hands Of the
son to use without interest until tho father sees
proper to @ require NJ Ell its n payment
of the Common Pleas aft med. .alEsfsE
:, The Court called SO more cases ON the General
Docket. beginning ~ith No. 81.
b MOTION ipockEr.
Byron o. Leslie ct al. v. Calvin r. Eastman. Mo-
ton for leave t9 ile petition in error to the Dis
By the Court =
In action against constable to recover posses
sion of personal property upon which he has levi
an execution. the plaintiff a. defendant. by their
attorneys. aud also the cution creditor. by his
attorney, came into Court and agreed and procured
the Court to order 1st that the be dismissed
so TAR as the constable is c0ncered: ID, that the
execution creditor, by consent of the plaintiff. be
made party defendant in the cause, with leave to
answer and set forth any claim he might have in the
his execution and levy the same q. the property
of the deotor in eXecution and that the suit should
be ltigated between the plaintiff and the execution
creditortne same as if originally commeneed sbe-
be may have to the property IN controversy In the
case.
The case was tried between the plaintiff snd the
execution creditor as defendant and the verdict
was. at the commencement of the action in said de-
fenda assessing his damages at $264, and rjudg-
ment was entered accordingly.
Held -
That in an action upon the replevin under aking.
the entry and order of the Court in the replevin
case should be taken showing that the execution
creditor was, substantially, substituted the de-
fendaut instead of the constable. within the mean
Motion overruled.
No. 10. Rachel Edmunds v. Jonathan Edmunds's
executor. Motion to set aside judgment. &c. Or
dsTed. that this cause be rsargued on briefs;
un Mining and Manufacturing Company. Leave
to file petition in error refused.
No. 46. Frederick b. Dodge ". The National Ex-
change Bank Of Columbus. Leave grated to file
petition in error.
No. 81. Jaeob. Klein ", Joseph Thompson. Mo-
tion to take case No a2s on General Docket out Of