The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1882-10-05

Thompson delivering the opinion.
He said that the Statute did not in
tend to interfere with the family rela-
ton. etc
B. f. Scott VS.. Robert Lucas. Lucas
sold Scott tract Of land, and his wife
refused to join in the deed. Scott
sued for specific performance. Lucas
gained the case in the Common Pleas
The District Court reversed the judg-
ment, Judge Tripp dissenting.
State of Ohio VS.. Harley Jenkins.
Defendant sold liquor in Portland.
He made several sales to be drunk
where sold, but they were all made to
one man. The sales were made in
back room, and the questions were,
are series of sales to one man, a vio-
lation of law,.and was this back room
place Of public resort? Defendant
was convicted in the Court below, and
the District Court affirmed the iudg-
ment.
There was an old case of Berry U.
Jackson VS.. Robert M. Kent and
others, in which the Judgment below
was affirmed, the case being against
Jackson.
There was case between Gilbert
N. Lackey, administrator of John
Lackey, and an insurance company.
John Lackey had been security on the
bond of D. W. Cherington, agent for
the company, and there was a judg-
ment in the Common Pleas. This
judgment was reversed. Judge Tripp
. delivered the opinion Of the Court,
and said that while the petition set up
that Cherington had received large
amount for the company in money
and notes, it did not appear that there
was any balance remaining in his
hands. z Judgment reversed.
There was a case between Samuel
N. Misner and Martha J. Misner
Some years ago Mrs. Misner obtained
decree and judgment against Samue
N. Misner for alimony. This judg
ment became dormant, and an actor
was brought to revive it. The actor
was brought in Jackson county, ant
Misner resided in Lawrence county
and summons was served on hin
, there, and the judgment revived. This
[ was writ of error to reverse tn,
| judgment, claiming that the Court il
[ Jackson county had not acquires
. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed tn
judgment, holding that this action t.
t revive the judgment was only sub
} sequent step in the original proceed
ing.
e There was a case between Isaa
Brown and Tropic Iron Co. Th
4 company and Brown owned joint
e some coal lands, and these lands ad
g joined the lands Of the company. Th
company, by mistake, had coal mine
over the line. The question was
i to the amount Of the damages. jude
: ment affirmed.
= There was a case between John i(
HI. Cobb and the First National Ban
n Of Jackson, the question being one {
v usury. It was very complicate
e case, and we have not space to repo
d it in full. The Bank had been pa
up, until the last notes. When usul
: has been paid, it cannot be set up as
O payment on subsequent debt, b,
must be recovered in a separate pen
h action, which action must be brougl
r. within two years. The last notes we
,r to bear interest at legal rates. p
v cent, but the notes called for pa
ment of interest semi-annually, al
,s this was compounding, contrary
,e the present Statute, and was usuriou
% and the recovery could be only for Il
# face Of the notes, the usury forfeitir
= all interest.
There was case of the State
:. Ohio VS.. Louis Holberg, for sellir
liquor to persons in the habit Of b.
coming intoxicated. The only que
9 tion was, did Holberg know that Il
le persons to whom he sold, were
;, such habit?. The court held that IL
;, evidence did not show knowledge G
the part or defendent, and judgmer
was reversed.