, 1872-11-14
Law Decisions.

Law Decisions.
As the decisions given below, copied
from the Ohio Supreme Court Reports
of the last term, may be of interest to
alany readers, We present them, as fol-
ows:
Elijah Taylor VS.. David G. Simpson
ct al.-Reserved in the Distric! Court of
Preble County. Day, j.:
Where tenants in common held real
estate under a will which devised it to
them in fee simple. but subject to the
contingency that, if either of them died
without issue, the Survivor should take
the whole estate. and one of them, hav-
ing made permanent improvements on
the land while the other was minor,
and with knowledge of the character of
the title, mortgaged his interest III the
real estate to secure loan of money,
and died without issue: Held, that the
improvements passed with the land
under the will to the surviving tenant,
and that neither The land nor the i'm
provements could be subjected under
the mortgage to the payment of the
mortgage debt.
Petition dismissed.
Samuel Everett and E. E. Wightman
VS.. Henry Il. Bancroft Error to the
Court of Common Pleas of Ashtabula
County. Reserved in the District
Court WHITE, j.:
The plaintiff, real estate agent, hav-
ing authority to sell farm, was, by
agreement with his principal, to have
for his services, all the farm brought
above q specified price per acre, and
the balance Of the purchase money he
was to pay over to the principal. He
entered into an agreement in his cwn
name with the defendants for the sale
Of the farm, whereby they agreed to
pay higher price for it than he was to
pay over to his principal. In an action
by the plaintiff against the defendants
to recover as damages for a breach of
the agreement, the amount of compen-
sation he would have received if the
agreement had been fulfilled by the
defendant--Held:
I. That the liability of the defendants
was to be ascertained from their own
agreement irrespective of agreement be-
tween the plaintiff and his principal; and
that the rule Of damages would be the
same whether the suit was brought in
the name of the principal or in the name
of the plaintiff as Que of the contracting
parties.
2. When tie vendor retains the lands
and its value at the time of performing
the agreement exceeds the agreed price.
nominal damages only can be recovered.
Judgment reversed, verdict set aside,
and cause remanded.
Lyman T. Thayer VS.. Charles l.. Luce
and John W. Fuller.-Error to the Dis
trict Court of Lucas county.
McILvAINE, J.-Held:
1 Several writings, though made at
different times, may be construed to-
eether for the purpose OF ascertaininS
the terms of contract required, by the
statute of frauds, to be in writing and
signed by the party to be charged there
with
2. If some only of such writings be
so signed, reference must be specially
made therein to those which are not SO
signed; but if each of the writing be SO
signed, such reference to the others
need not be made if by inspection and
comparison it appear that they several}y
relate to OF form part of the same trans
action.
8. An instrument Of writing in the
usual form of deed of conveyance,
but not delivered as such, may never
theless be delivered as an executory con-
tract, or as partial evidence of contract
to sell and convey the lands therein de-
seribed; and if signed and so delivered
by the vendor and accepted by the ven
dee, it is sufficient, in an action thereon
against the vendor, to take the case out
of the operation of the statute of frauds.
4. On the trial of an issue under the
statute of frauds, the assent of the
plaintiff to the terms of the contract
may be shown by parol testimony.
5. If the contract was made by the
agent of the plaintiff in such case. the
agency may be established by the parol
testimony, Notwithstanding the agent
may have contracted in his own name,
without disclosing his agency or the
name of the principal in the TRANSACTION.
6. If on trisl of cause incompetent
testimony be admitted with the consent
of party, bat subject to his objection
r.