« ZurückWeiter »
2. The law of 1843 made the right to do the sales amounting to more than 50 dollars.
Ibid. 2. An agreement to lease land for the term
of two years, at a rent equal to the full
rental value of the premises, the occupa-
tion to commence at a future day, is an
withstanding the exception in that section
relating to leases not exceeding the term
of three years, to be valid, it must be in
writing.-Stackberger v. Mosteller, 461
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF.
COMMISSIONERS, 3 to 5. ConstituTIONAL
Debt. JUDGMENT, 7. MISDEMEANOR. Pro-
SECUTING ATTORNEY. RETAILING, 3, 5.
is directly ordered by the legislature, or Summons, 1, 2. SUNDAY. TAXES, 1, 2, 6.
Ibid. 1. The act of 1848 authorizing a r ference
of the claim of Patrick McGinley against
for the constitutional convention of 1850, be appointed by the governor, enacted
convention of 1850, was procured by the 2. That act made it the duty of the Supreme
Court, on an appeal from the award of
the arbitrators, to examine the case upon
peal to the Supreme Court from the award
of the arbitrators, intended that said
Court should be governed by the rules of
law applicable to ordinary suits. Ibid.
4. A member of the board of public works
could not, under the internal improve.
ment act of 1836, approve or disapprove
of a contractor's work.
property from taxation, is to be construed
not be reviewed. — The State v. McGinley;
erected for religious worship is situate, | 16. The act of January 16, 1849, giving not exceeding ten acres, was not intended exclusive original jurisdiction of assaulis to include any part of the land which is and batteries to justices of the peace in
diverted to secular uses for gain. Ibid. Delaware county, took effect from its 7. When a statute confers a new power on
passage.-Smith v. The State, 500 a justice of the peace, he must proceed in 17. The R. S. 1852 were not in force in the mode prescribed by the statute. March, 1853.—Ledley v. The State, 580 Bargis v. The State,
18. The internal improvement act of 1836, 8. An act of 1849 conferred upon justices except so far as it conflicts with the acts
of the peace in certain counties, exclusive transferring the various public works, jurisdiction over certain offences, and has not been repealed; and the Supreme enacted that they should,“ on complaint Court has constantly regarded it as enuuder oath, or on view, take jurisdiction tering into and forming a part of the vanof all such offences.” Held, that the jus. ous acts conveying away, for construction, tice could not render a judgment against the public works, so far as consistent with an offender upon confession of any such those acts.—Null et al. v. The White offence, except on such complaint or on Water, 4-c., Canal Co.,
19. The act of January 16, 1849, giving 9. The statute creating the Centreville and
exclusive original jurisdiction of assaults Abington Turnpike Company, provided and batteries to justices of the peace in that, for the purpose of determining the
Delaware county, took effect from its pas. damages to be allowed for land taken for
sage.-Smith v. The State,
500 the use of the company, each party might select one disinterested freeholder of the 20. The meaning of the act entitled “ county, and give notice to the other party act to amend article 5, chapter 28, of the to select another, to act as arbitrators. Revised Statutes of 1843," approved JanHeld, that the claim filed need not show uary 21, 1850, is, that in the distribution that the arbitrator selected by the claim. of the surplus of the personal estate of a ant was a disinterested freeholder. The
deceased husband, after the payment of Centreville, foc., Turnpike Co. v. Jarrett debts, there shall be given to the widow, et al.,
213 where there are no heirs lineally descend
ed, the amount of dowry which she 10. Whether a law is politic or expedient
brought to the husband, if the surplus is or necessary, is not a question with which
sufficient for that purpose; and where the courts have anything to do.-Bepley the surplus exceeds that amount, she shall v. The State,
receive such amount and half of the resi. 11. The term “land-office certificate of
due: but where she brought no dowry,
she shall have half of such surplus.purchase,” as used in s. 8, c. 29, R. S. 1843, applies to certificates from the U. Carothers et ux. 8. Little et al.,
571 s. land offices; and the term “land-office 21. Section 3 of chapter 71 of the R. S. receipts of final payment," as used in 1843, does not make it penal to issue or that section, relates to our system of canal put in circulation as a circulating medium, lands, Michigan road lands, and others
or substitute for bank notes, bills containsold on credit.-Dickerson v. Nelson et al.,
ing a promise to pay a sum of money in 280
bank notes.-The State v. Watson, 595 12. The act of 1851 to regulate the sale of
spirituous liquors in 1'ippecanoe county, 22. The law in relation to exceptions in a was not repealed by the new constitu
statute is, that if the exception be contion.— The State v. O Conner, 299 tained in a subsequent clause or statute,
it is matter of defence, and need not be 13 Section 7 of that act does not create a
negatived in the information; but if it be distinct offence from that created by sec
closely connected with the enacting tion 5 of the same act, but only prescribes clause, or if it be in the same clause of a new rule of evidence upon trials for
the act which creates an offence, it is the offence defined by the latter section.
necessary to show by negative averment Ibid.
that the defendant is not within the ex14. The R. S. 1852 did not take effect until ception.—Brutton v. The State, 601
they were distributed to all the counties
act of Januury 16, 1849, exclusive original 15. They were not distributed to all the jurisdiction, in cases of assault and batcounties until the 6th day of May, 1853. tery, is vested in justices of the peace.Ibid. Sumpter v. The State,
24. The R. S. 1852 did not take effect till ditches, &c., as might be necessary for the
2. When the supervisor acts without the
scope of his authority, and private injury
is thereby sustained, the law will not pro-
terms, without the benefit of the stay of 3. A person acting as supervisor was sued
in case for constructing a culvert across
a public road in his district in such a man-
his injury, &c. The plaintiff having
proved the construction of the culvert by
The defendant, in the manner charged,&c.,
held, that the defendant, in order to re-
relieve himself froin liability, was bound
to show that the culvert was necessary for
the construction, repair, or preservation
of the highway, and was constructed at
in a cause, that judgment had been ren-
extract an opinion on certain points sup-
character of the proceedings, as shown by
the record, indicated that such was the
fact. The Supreme Court affirmed the
Hotchkiss et al. v. Jones,
2. Motion to reinstate a cause upon the
Ibid. having been continued for two terms suc-
cessively under the general order, was, at
the next term, regularly called for trial,
and, the plaintiffs failing to appear, was
dismissed, at the instance of the defend-
ants, under rule 19, governing the prac-
tice of the Court, which prescribes that
“ if, when a cause is called, the plaintiff
fail to appear, the defendant may have
the cause dismissed,” &c. At a subse-
quent day of the same term, on motion of
the plaintiffs' counsel, a rule was gran.
ted and served on the defendant's counsel,
day is common labor within the meaning reinstated, &c. The only ground for rein-
619 affidavit of the plaintiffs' counsel, alleg.
ing that he was necessarily absent on the
calling of the cause; that it was dismissed
for want of prosecution; and that he be-
the highways of his district in order, that justice required its reinstatement.
3. Where, however, at the calling and dis idence that the collector had done his du.
TENANT IN COMMON.
See SAERIFF, 3, 4.
653 A tender of money in a handkerchief, with
a statement of the amount and kind, is a
bridge Company does not authorize the
company to create any obstruction to the
navigation of the Wabash river in con.
structing their bridge.-The Terre-Haute
Drawbridge Company v. Halliday et al., 36
2. By an obstruction is meant such an impe-
diment to the navigation, that boats in
passing along the stream could not, by the
use of skill and care, avoid being injured.
See CONTRACT, 13.
See VENDOR AND PURCHASER, 4.
See VENDOR AND PURCH ABER, 6.
See PLEADING, 17, 29.
In trover, upon the general issue, the plain-
upon a sale for taxes was prima facie ev own title and righi of possession, and not
on the want of title of his adversary: interest has been paid, it is deducted Bricker v. Hughes,
146 from the principal, and judgment sen.
dered for the residue; and the defendant TRUST. recovers his costs.
Ibid. 5. To constitute usury, two things are necesSee CHANCURY, 5.
sary: 1. A loan, and 2. The taking of
more interest than the law allows; and TRUST ESTATE.
where these facts are shown to exist, the
law pronounces the intent to have been See EXECUTION, 6. corrupt.
Ibid. 6. In a civil case, evidence is not admissi.
ble to show that the party contracting for
usurious interest had no corrupt purpose UMPIRE. in taking it.
See EviDENCE, 1. JUDGMENT, 4.
VENDITIONI EXPONAS. 1. A usage of trade may be proved to aid, in a case of doubt, in construing a con.
See EXECUTION, 1, 2. tract or determining upon the manner of discharging some duty or performing
VENDOR AND PURCHASER. some act; but to give it any controlling effect it must be a long-continued, uni- See ADMINISTRATOR's Sale, 1, 2. ADVERSE form, and generally known usage; and it POSSESSION. CERTIFICATE FOR CANAL LAND, must relate to matters of fact and not to a 2. CHANCERY, 5. CONVEYANCE. COVEcommon belief as to what is the law.
NANT, 1 to 6. EXECUTION, 6. FRAUDUCoz et al. v. O'Riley et al.,
368 LENT CONVEYANCE. JUDGMENT, 1. NOTICE.
PLEADING, 8, 10, 14, 27, 30. PROMISSORY 2. A usage repugnant to well-established
Note, 32. SEDUCTION. SHERIFF, 4, 5. rules of law is not, in any case, admissi. ble in evidence.
Ibid. 1. A. sold and conveyed to B. and C. a tract
of land and took their note for part of the USURY.
purchase-money. Afterwards, and be.
fore the note became due, he sent an agent See INDICTMENT, 5.
to collect it. Upon the proposal of B.,
the agent agreed to take the individual 1. Usury may be given in evidence under
note of B., with an extension of the time the general issue.-Start v. Laws et al.,
of payment, for a part of his half of the
note, upon his paying in hand the residue 2. A. being indebted to B. for the balance of such half. The money was thus paid
of a note then due, and desiring an ex and the note taken, and the agent theretension of credit, went with B. to C., to upon entered a credit on the original note whom B. then sold the note at a discount for one-half thereof. The land afterwards of 10 per cent., upon an agreement that a passed into the hands of D., an innocent credit of a year was to be extended to A. purchaser, for a valuable consideration, upon the note. A., at the same time, to without notice of the circumstances under indemnify B., executed to B. a note, in which the credit was made, or the indiform of a due bill, for the amount of the vidual note of B. executed. A. received discount upon the first note. Held, that the note of B., acquiesced for several the latter note was void, as being given years in the arrangement made by his entirely upon a usurious consideration.
agent, and did not disapprove thereof;
Ibid. but afterwards filed his bíli to enforce his 3. Section 29, c. 31, R. S. 1843, is retrospec
lien, as a vendor, against the land in the tive, and revives contracts which were,
hands of D., for the non-payment of the by the previous act, void for usury:
individual note of B. Held, that as to Reed et al. v. Coale, Administrator, 283 D., at least, A. must be held to bave rati
fied the act of his agent, and that the 4. But the payee of a usurious note, under credit entered on the original note by the
the law of 1843 can only recover the agent must be treated as a payment, and principal, without interest, and if any that the individual note of B. must be