The state chronicle., 1884-04-12

der section 985, subsection 6, OF The
Code. There is presumption OF law that-
every man intends the natural conse-
quences of his acts, but this presumption
has no other or greater effect than to es-
tablish a 217ina0 fucie case against the de-
fendant, and throw upon him the burden
of proof.
Berry V. Co,peni,ag. Error. Plainriff
moved for leave to issue execution on a
judgment rendered by a Justice of the
Peace, and docketed more than seven
years before the motion was made. Mo
ton refused on the plea of the statute of
limitations by the defendant.
Price V. Deaz Error. Near trial as to
damages only. Plaintiff alleges breaches
of covenant Of seizure and of quiet en-
joyment, and prays for general relief. The
court will look to the allegations and proofs
and give such relief as the justice of the
case demands, consistently with the facts
set out in the complaint.
In an action for breach of covenant Of
quiet enjoyment, the plaintiff must allege
and show an eviction by title paramount;
but for breach of covenant of seizin, all
plaintiff need show is that defendant had
no title or right to convey. And, as
general rule, the measure of damages is
the same in both actions.
"A pdICy HIS d IlSuU W TCl1ONC du 111CuIl-
brance, and in such case the measure of
damages is the amount paid for this pur-
pose-not to exceed the price paid for the
land.
State v. Cannon. affirmed Judgment
can be arrested only for matter appearing
on the record, or the omission of what
ought to appear on the record.
Endorsements on the bill of Indictment
form no part of the bill and no part of
the record.
Judgment will not be arrested, because
the foreman of the grand jury testified as
a witness and was the owner of the goods
described in the bill.
MERRMON, j.
Mc11lldaa v. Nye. Notion to dismiss
for the reason that the appeal bond was
not justified as required by The Code.
The motion allowed and appeal dismiss
ed.
Fleming V. Burgin. Dismissed for
same reason as in above action.
HenapAiU v. BzachaUelder. Dismissed
for same reason as above cases.
| Wisem0ae V. W1theroaU. affirmed.
Plaintiff sued for 1912. On the trial it
appeared by plaintiffs evidence that de-
fendant had made payments which were
| entered on the books which reduced the
amount to $58.25. Held, that while the
amount demanded determines the ques-
ton of jurisdiction, yet the plaintiff had
no right to demand more than was due to
confer Jurisdiction, and that the court on
the facts appearing did right in dismiss
ing the action.
McGzenne1y V. Miller. Error. The
plaintiff was married in 1850, being then
seized in fee of the land in controversy
She and her husband sold and conveyed
it by deed in 1852. The deed was not
proved or acknowledged by the husband
until 1857. In 1852 commission was is
| sued by the county court to take the privy
examination of the wife, who made theil
report to the court. There was issue born
alive and capable of inheriting The
fenae coUe7t brought action to recover the
land, claiming that the deed Of 1852 was
imperative to convey her estate therein
Held, that the husband was tenant by the
courtesy initiate, and therefore necessa
ry party to the action; and if he would moi
join his wife as plaintiff she could make
him defendant. That the deed of 1852
not having been proved or acknowledged
by the husband before the privy examina
ton of the wife, was imperative as t(
her, and that the husband could not con
vey his interest without her consent
shown by her privy examination. The
| court reserves the question as to the rights
of the husband in the wife's land, since
the Act of 1S4S.
For v. Stafford. Error. Sale Of lane
for taxes under the United States interna
revenue law.
The recitals in deed for land sold fo
taxes are not evidence against the owner
that the recitals therein are true and tn,
things necessary and preliminary to, ant
in aid of the sale, must be established b,
proof dehors the deed, and the onals pro
bdndi rests on the purchaser