Abbildungen der Seite

2. The law of 1843 made the right to do the sales amounting to more than 50 dollars.
state printing and take the compensation -Henline v. Hall,

therefor, an office.

Ibid. 2. An agreement to lease land for the term
3. The office of state printer is one of trust

of two years, at a rent equal to the full
and profit.


rental value of the premises, the occupa-

tion to commence at a future day, is an
4. The sale of the office of state printer is agreement relating to an interest io land,
prohibited by principles of public policy: and under s. 16, c. 28, R. S. 1843, and not-


withstanding the exception in that section
5. The act of 1851, entitled “ An act in re-

relating to leases not exceeding the term

of three years, to be valid, it must be in
lation to the pay of Austin H. Brown,

writing.-Stackberger v. Mosteller, 461
printer to the constitutional convention of
Indiana," does not sanction the assign. 3. A suit will not lie upon an oral agree-
ment of the office of state printer made by ment for such a lease on account of the
Jacob P. Chapman, state printer, to Ellis refusal of the lessee to deliver possession
and Spann.
Ibid. of the premises at the time appointed.

6. The printing done for the constitutional
convention of 1850, was not embraced in

any contract, express or implied, between
the state printer and the legislature that

elected him.

7. No contract could be implied, on the part

of the legislature, with ihe state printer,
further than that he should execute the See ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE, 3, 4. BOARD OF
printing authorized by a legislature act-

ing under the same constitution with that Law, 12 to 15, 17. IMPRISONMENT FOR
which elected him.



8. By public printing is meant that which SHERIFF, 7, 8, 9. Stay OF EXECUTION.

is directly ordered by the legislature, or Summons, 1, 2. SUNDAY. TAXES, 1, 2, 6.
performed for the agents of the state gov.

ernment authorized to procure it to be

Ibid. 1. The act of 1848 authorizing a r ference

of the claim of Patrick McGinley against
9. The printing executed by Austin H. Brown the state to three disinterested persons, to

for the constitutional convention of 1850, be appointed by the governor, enacted
was not authorized by a legislature acting that iwo of such persons should be men
under the constitution of 1816, nor by any of legal attainments, &c. Held, that the
legislature; nor did any authorized agent act was merely directory to the governor,
of the legislature procure it to be done. and that his action in the preroises could

10. The printing done for the constitutional

convention of 1850, was procured by the 2. That act made it the duty of the Supreme
convention to be done on its own respon-

Court, on an appeal from the award of
sibility; and the subsequent payment for it

the arbitrators, to examine the case upon

its merits.
by a legislature sitting under the author-

ity of the constitution of 1851, was a vol. 3. ' he legislature, by authorizing an ap;
untary and not an obligatory act; and the

peal to the Supreme Court from the award
state was not rendered liable for damages

of the arbitrators, intended that said
to the state printer thereby.


Court should be governed by the rules of

law applicable to ordinary suits. Ibid.

4. A member of the board of public works
See State PRINTER.

could not, under the internal improve.

ment act of 1836, approve or disapprove

of a contractor's work.

5. The statute which exempts persons or
See PLEADING, 26. SALE, 4.

property from taxation, is to be construed
strictly:-Orr v. Baker,

1. By the common law, a parol contract for
the sale of chattels is valid; and the stat. 6. The statute which exempts from taxation
ute of frauds changes that rule only as to the lands whereupon every building

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.,

431 view.


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
in the state.-Jones v. Cavins, 305 23. Jennings county is one in which by the

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
the 6th of May, 1853.—The State v. Kiger, construction, repair, &c., of such highway.

-Conwell v. Emrie,


2. When the supervisor acts without the

scope of his authority, and private injury
See Alimony, 2, 3. JUDGMENT, 12, 13.

is thereby sustained, the law will not pro-
tect him.

A promissory note was made payable, in

terms, without the benefit of the stay of 3. A person acting as supervisor was sued
execution. Suit was brought upon the

in case for constructing a culvert across
note and the court rendered judgment for

a public road in his district in such a man-
the plaintiff, and that the defendant should ner as to convey water from a hill side
have no stay of execution. Held, that so into and upon the plaintiff's tan-yard, to
much of the judgment as prohibited the

his injury, &c. The plaintiff having
stay of execution was erroneous.- -McLane

proved the construction of the culvert by
et al. v. Elmer,


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
the proper place.


A junior mortgagee who, to protect his own 1. It appeared by the briefs of the counsel
interest, purchases the mortgaged prem-

in a cause, that judgment had been ren-
ises at a sale upon foreclosure of the first dered for more than was due, in order to
mortgage, is entitled to be subrogated to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction and
all the rights and equities of the first

extract an opinion on certain points sup-
mortgagee.-Benton v. Shreeve et al., 66 posed to be at issue in the case; and the

character of the proceedings, as shown by

the record, indicated that such was the

fact. The Supreme Court affirmed the
1. The R. S. 1843 authorized the service of judgment, without investigating the
a summons by leaving a copy at the de- grounds on which it was rendered.-

Hotchkiss et al. v. Jones,

fendant's usual place of residence.-Kelly
v. Mason,


2. Motion to reinstate a cause upon the
2. The statute did not contemplate that the docket of the Supreme Court. The cause
seal should be copied.

Ibid. having been continued for two terms suc-
3. The date is not a material part of a sum.

cessively under the general order, was, at

the next term, regularly called for trial,
4. A defendant served with a summons by

and, the plaintiffs failing to appear, was

dismissed, at the instance of the defend-
leaving a copy at his residence, cannot

ants, under rule 19, governing the prac-
obtain a continuance simply because he

tice of the Court, which prescribes that
was absent when the copy was left, and

“ if, when a cause is called, the plaintiff
received no notice of the suit till the day

fail to appear, the defendant may have
before the commencement of the Court.

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,
The making of a promissory note on Sun- to show cause why the case should not be

day is common labor within the meaning reinstated, &c. The only ground for rein-
of s. 123, c. 53, R. S. 1843.-Reynolds v. stating the cause, was contained in an

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-
1. A supervisor, for the purpose of keepingo lieved there were merits in the cause, and

the highways of his district in order, that justice required its reinstatement.
might, under the R. S. 1843,enter upon any Held, that no sufficient reason was shown
lands adjoining or near to any highway in for granting the motion.-Hood et al. v.
his district, and thereupon construct such Dinwiddie et al.




3. Where, however, at the calling and dis idence that the collector had done his du.
missal of a cause, the plaintiff is tempo ty in relation to the sale.

rarily out of the court-room, but returus
immediately and asks ils reinstatement,

the Court would direct the entry of dis-
mission to be stricken out.


4. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction
under s. 119, 2 vol. R. S. 1852, to correct

an alleged error in the finding of the Court,
in a criminal cause, where the defendant

See SAERIFF, 3, 4.
has been acquitted. — The Stute v. Yount,

653 A tender of money in a handkerchief, with

a statement of the amount and kind, is a
sufficient tender.-Davis et al. v. Stone-

An affidavit for surety of the peace alleged

that the complainant verily believed and
actually feared, &c., that X. B. would kill TERRE-HAUTE DRAWBRIDGE COM.
him. or do him great bodily injury, or pro-

cure others to do so, &c. Held, that the
charge was bad for being in the alterna: 1. The charter of the Terre-Haute Drau.
tive.-Steele v. The State,


bridge Company does not authorize the

company to create any obstruction to the

navigation of the Wabash river in con.
See Deposit, 2. RELATOR.

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
1. The statute which exempts persons or

use of skill and care, avoid being injured.

property from taxation, is to be construed
stricily:-Orr v. Baker,

2. The statute which exempts from taxation
the lands whereupon every building erec-

ted for religious worship is situate, not ex-
ceeding ten acres, was not intended to in.

clude any part of the land which is diver-
ted to secular uses for gain.


3. A tract of land was listed twice for taxes
of the year 1727once as first-class, and

once as second class land. The clerk, in
transcribing from the assessment-roll, car See JURISDICTION. PROMISSORY NOTE, 9.
ried out the tract as first class land. The
law of 1925, and the act of which it is

amendatory, made it the duty of the clerk
to carry out the assessment into the du County treasurers were not, under the R. S.
plicatt; but there was no provision in a 1843, entitled to a per cent. for paying out
case where the land was thus listed twice, that part of the revenue collecied on the
which listing should be carried out. The tax duplicate.- Woollen v. The Board of
land was afterwards sold for the non-pay. Commissioners of Jefferson Co., 331
ment of the taxes of 1827. Held, ihat
the sale could not be supported.-Barnes

v. Doe d Pelton,

4. The law in relation to the sale of land

for the non-payment of taxes is construed


5. The possession of land under a deed

See PLEADING, 17, 29.
given upon a sale for taxes, is adverse,
though the itle under the deed may be

invalid. —Hearick et al. v. Doe d. Dunn
et al., 164.

In trover, upon the general issue, the plain-
6. Under the R. S. 1824, a collector's deed tiff must recover upon the strength of his

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.





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.,


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

« ZurückWeiter »