An appeal does not lie to the Supreme Court on an application to redeem lands sold for taxes.—
Street v. Francis, 573.

Where an appeal is quashed for a defect in the appeal bond, occasioned by the mistake or over-
sight of the clerk, a court of equity will order a new trial, upon a proper case made. Oliver,
et al. v. Pray, 766.

In cases certified to the common pleas, upon attachment from justices of the peace, the common
pleas have original jurisdiction, and an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. Vancleve v. Wil-
son, 323.

When in trespass one joint defendant is acquitted and one convicted, the one convicted may ap-
peal the cause as to himself without affecting his co-defendant. Emerick v. Armstrong, et
al., 218.

APPRAISEMENT.

A sale of real estate, upon execution, without appraisement, is void. Lessee of Patrick v. Ous-
terout, 20. CONTRA Lessee of Allen v. O. Parrish, 526.

The act of 1795 did not require unimproved lands to be appraised. Roads v. Symmes, et al.,
138.

Where lands are decreed by a court of chancery to be sold absolutely, they must be appra ís-
ed as upon executions at law. Wiles, et al. v. Baylor, 217.

Where a defendant, under an arrest, upon execution for a fine, makes a surrender of lands in
discharge of his body, such lands may be sold without appraisement. Lessee of Walsh v.

Ringer, 381.

Lands levied upon by a sei. fa, on mortgage, must be appraised. Lessee of Allen v, O, Parrish,

526.

Upon an application to foreclose the equity of redemption, chancery will direct the mortgaged
premises to be appraised. Anonymous, 109,

ARBITRAMENT AND AWARD.

An appeal from the Commor Plens to the Supreme Court does not vacate a submission to arbi-
trators, nor their award, but the award is open to the same exceptions in the Supreme Court
as in the court below. Treasurer of Champaigne county v. Norton, 130.

An award to deliver "books, papers, and accounts, a small chest and wearing apparel," is too
vague to be sustained. Thoms v. Molier, 565,

An award is bad unless it shows, that the arbitrators met at the time and place specified in the
submission. Strum v. Cunningham, 579,

Assumpsit will not lie on an award made in pursuance of a submission by specialty. Tullis v.
Sewall, 6531

An agreement to submit a question of boundary to arbitrators, defeats the operation of the sta-
tute of limitations. Lessce of Hunt v. Guilford, 802.

ARREST OF JUDGMENT.

SEE Judgment.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

Assault and Battery will not lie against a corporation; nor can a corporation be joined in such
action, with other defendants. Orr v. B. U. States et al. 25.

In an action of assault and battery and false imprisonment, if the damages assessed are under
five dollars, the plaintiff can recover no costs. Bell v. Bates, 611.

ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE.

The assignee of an agreement is concluded in equity by a decision at law against the assignor,
the assignee at the time of the assignment having notice. Curtis et al. v. Cisna's adm'r. 186.
Where a suit is brought in the name of one person for the use of another, it is not necessary to
show an assignment of the subject of the action. Numlin v. Westlake, 242.

The assignment of a note given for the purchase inoney of land, does not transfer the equitable
lien of the vendor. Jackman v. Hallock et al. 144.

An assignment by a grantee upon the back of a deed, "of all his right and title in the deed," to

the plaintiff, does not pass such a title as will enable the plaintiff to recover in ejectment.
Lessee of Bentley's Heirs v. Deforest, 329.

An assignment, by an insolvent in Pennsylvania, of all his estate both real and personal, does
not pass real estate in Ohio. Lessee of McCullough's Heirs v. Rodrick, 337.

SEE Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, Evidence, Bank and Bank Notes.

ASSUMPSIT.

Assumpsit will lie upon a note in

sideration or original contract.

writing, whether negotiable or not, without setting out the con-
Dugan v. Campbell, 56.

The plaintiff may recover upon the general counts in assumpsit, where a special contract has
been put an end to by the act of the parties. Fitch v, Sergeant, 161,

It is not necessary to constitute a good consideration for an assumpsit, that the party making the
promise should receive any actual value or benefit from the party to whom the promise is
made, if in consequence of the transaction, a loss has been sustained by such party, The
delivery of a pledge to a third person, not authorized tɔ receive it, is a good consideration for
an assumpsit, Saunders v, Pope, 211,

Assumpsit does not lie for mesne profits accruing after the date of a demise in the declaration of
ejectment. Linnard v, McBride, 563, S. P. Butler v, Cowles, 779.

Assumpsit will not lie on an award made in pursuance of a submission by specialty, Tullis v,
Sewell, 653.

SER Action, Use and Occupation.

ATTACHMENT.

Money collected on execution cannot be attached in the hands of the sheriff.
comb, 134.

Dawson v. Hol-

A judgment in attachment before a justice of the peace, may be set aside on certiorari, upon
proof that the defendant was a resident of the county where the writ issued. Hartshorn v.
Wilson, 244.

In attachment under the act of 1810, it is error to render judgment, unless three months notica
be given.
Colwell v, The Bank of Steubenville, 334,

Foreign Attachment cannot be sustained against one of several joint contractors.
Hurford, 752.

Coudin v.

Nor can it be sustained where one of several contractors is a resident and the others non-resi-
dents. Taylor, et al. v. McDonald, 758.

In attachment certified from a justice of the peace to the common pleas, the jurisdiction of the
common pleas is original. Vancleve v. Wilson, 323.

ATTACHMENT FOR CONTEMPT.

The sheriff is authorized to take bail on an attachment for contempt. Morris v. Marcy, et al.
724.

The statutory provision, that a decree for a deed shall operate as a conveyance, does not divest
the court of the power to enforce the actual execution of a deed by attachment for contempt. Ran`
dall v. Pryor, 845.

ATTORNEY AT LAW.

Treasurer of Champaigne co、 v.

A contract with an attorney, that he shall prosecute suits for the recovery of property and re
ceive part of the property recovered as a compensation for his services, and that no comprom,
ise shall be made, except he join in it, is illegal and void. Key v. Vattier, 64.
The acquiescence of the attorney of record, binds the party.
Norton, 130.
Where process is issued against several defendants, and is served upon part only, and returned
not served as to the others, the attorney employed by those served, enters an appearance for all,
without the knowledge of the defendants not served, Held, that in a bill for contribution by

those served, the others are not concluded by the judgment. The attorney in such case is a
competent witness. Cox v. Hill, et al., 619.

A party, for whom an attorney appears in court without authority, is not concluded by the acts
of the attorney. Crichfield v. Porter, 656.

AWARD. SEE Arbitrament and Award.

BAIL.

Special Bail are not liable, where the principal dies after the return of the ca, sa. non est, and
before the return of the first sci. fa. executed or second nihil. Bank of Mount Pleasant v.
Pollock, 24.

Where an obligation is made by Principal and Surety and the Special Bail of the Principal are
compelled to pay the money, the Surety is not responsible to the Special Bail for any part of
the money. Smith v. Bing, 460.

The Sheriff is authorised to take Bail on an attachment for contempt. Morris v. Marcy et al. 724.
SEE Principal and Surety.

BANK AND BANK NOTES.

A contract to pay in current bank notes, is a contract to pay in money, if bank notes be not ten-
dered at the day. Smith v. Goddard, 85. S. P. Morris v. Edwards, 222.
For certain purposes, and in fact for every purpose, in the ordinary transaction of business,
bank notes, ever have been and still are considered as money, though they are not a lawful
tender. Ib.

Where a Bank has bona fide parted with all interest in a debt due the Bank, the debtor cannot
pay the assignee in the paper of the Bank. Pancost v. Ruffin, et al. 169.

An obligation to pay in notes of a specific Bank must be paid in the notes of that Bank or their
numerical value in money; their value in market cannot be substituted. Edwards v. Morris,
222.

Where the charter of a Bank is extended and no new security given by the Cashier, the securities
under the old charter are not liable for defalcation under the extended charter. Thompson
v. Young, et al. 383.

The Bank of the U. States cannot remove a cause from a State to the Circuit Court under the
act of Congress of 1798. Heirs of Ludlow, v. Th Heirs Kud, et al. 463.
Under the Statute regulating judicial proceedings where Banks and Bankers are parties, a Bank
upon a joint and several contract, cannot ask the aid of equity, until they have made use of
all their legal remedies. Bank of Chillicothe, v. Yoe, et al. 747.

SEE Damages.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES.

Assumpsit will lie upon a note in writing, whether negotiable or not, without setting out the con-
sideration or original contract. Dugan v. Campbell, 56.

The term "currency" in a note means current money, unless controlled by other positive terms.
Ib.

Where a sealed Bill is assigned, and suit brought in the name of the assignor, he must prove the
assignment under the plea of non est factum. McMurtry v. Campbell 125.

The Colonel is not liable upon orders drawn on the paymaster of the Regiment. Such orders do
not stand upon the same footing with negotiable paper. Smurr v. Forman, 132.
Endorsers of promissory notes, endorsed for the use and accommodation of the drawer, are co-
securities, and the last endorser cannot recover more than a contributable share against a pre
vious endorser. Douglas. Waddle, 182,

Where a Note or Bill is made payable at a certain time and place, no demand is necessary to
charge the maker er en lorser.-An averment of such demand, though immaterial, must be
prove!. Conn v. Gano, 210.

A note assigned and the note retained in the hands of the assignor until his death, vests no in
terest in the assignee. Clark v. Boyd, 250.

The holder of a note payable to A. B. or bearer in cattle, may maintain an action upon it in his

own name, but he must aver and prove that the note was delivered to him for a good consi-
deration. Byington v. Geddings, 333.

A declaration upon an endorsement of a promissory note guarantying payment by the maker,
must set out the consideration of such endorsement. The guarantor upon such endorsement
is not liable without a demand and notice of non-payment. Green v. Dodge, et al. 436.
A note payable "to A. B. or bearer, in good merchantable whiskey at trade price" cannot be
sued by an assignee or bearer in his own name. Rhodes v. Lindley, 465.

Partial failure of the consideration of a note cannot be taken advantage of at Law. Harlan
v. Read, 578.

When the maker removes from the State where he resided at the time of making the note, the
holder is not bound to make a demand of the maker to charge the endorser. Gist v. Lybrand,
591.
Where the endorser resided nine miles from the City, and spent part of his time in the City, re
ceiving letters and messages at a particular place, in the route of a letter carrier, and proof
was given that notice of non payment was put into the post office of the city, directed to the
endorser, after a verdict for the plaintiff, a new trial was refused, though no proof was given to
the jury that the city post office was the nearest to the residence of the defendant.
Gist v.
Lybrand, 591.

The assignment of a note secured by mortgage, and a delivery of the mortgage deed without an
actual assignment, transfers all the rights secured by the mortgage. Paine v. French, et al
807.

A court of justice will not lend its aid to enforce the collection of a note the consideration of
which is an undertaking to conceal or stifle the prosecution of a felony. Roll v. Raguet,
842.

Ayres v. Harness, 167.
Duckwall, et ux. v. Weaver, 234.

A sealed Bill written upon a carte blanche is void.
A mutilated note may be declared upon as entire.
A declaration upon a promissory note is good, without averments of liability, assumption, &c.
Richmond v. Patterson, et al. 608.

SEE Damages.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

In forcible entry and detainer, a bill of exceptions cannot be tested by a by-stander. Murphy v.
Lucas, 350.

A mandamus may issue to the Court of Common Pleas to sign a true bill of exceptions; but
not to sign a particular bill of exceptions, whether true or not. The power of determining
whether a bill of exceptions is true or not, is vested in the Judges, to whom it is presented for
signature. The State of Ohio v. Todd, et al. 820.

The party who takes a Bill of exceptions, must distinctly point out wherein he may have been
prejudiced by the opinion excepted to. McDougal v. Fleming, 838.

BILL OF LADING.

Where a Bill of Lading was signed by the master of a vessel, acknowledging the receipt of
certain goods, and stating that they were to be transported from Buffalo to Cleveland, the dan-
ger of the Lakes and Rivers only excepted. Held, that the legal effect of this agreement was to
carry the goods from Buffalo to Cleveland, by the most direct route, conveniently adapted to
that purpose; and that a parol agreement between the master and shipper, before and at
the time of executing the bill of lading, permitting the master to deviate from the usual course
was inadmissible evidence, in an action by the shipper against the owners, to recover for the
loss of the goods. May v. Babcock, et al. 817.

BOND.

A Bond for the prosecution of a writ of error is good, though the terms required by the Statute
are not precisely followed. A substantial compliance only is necessary. The Court will
not aid a party to avoid the obligation of such a bond, by adopting strained and rigid maxims
of construction. Gardener v. Woodyear, 83.

Summary proceedings, under the Statute, cannot be had upon a collector's bond, when it is er-

roneously taken. Miller v. The Commissioners of Montgomery County, 131.

A Bond written upon a carte blanche is void. Ayres v. Harness, 167.

It seems that a penal bond, obtained from a person intoxicated by the procurement of the obligee,
may be avoided at Law. Lacey v. Garrard, 231.

Under the act of 1810, a bond for the conveyance of town lots, to which no value is affixed,
cannot be prosecuted by an assignee in his own name. McCutchen v. Keith, 355.

A Bond for the re-delivery of property taken in execution and not sold for half the appraise-
ment under the act of 1820, and not re-delivered or tendered to the officer who made the levy,
or his representatives, is forfeited, though no new execution be sued out. Wright v. Lepper,
et al. 368.

A Bond of an Insolvent Debtor is valid, though it does not in terms follow the Statute. Com-
missioner of Insolvents v. Way, et al. 483.

A Bond given for the prison limits is void unless the defendant be actually in prison and that
fact be recited in the Bond. Lytle v. Davies, 361.

A joint Bond for the prison limits, given in separate suits is void. Ib.

SEE Executors and Administrators, Principal and Surety, Constable.

BURIAL GROUND.

Lands obtained by religious societies, cannot be considered as set apart for a burial grouad, un-
less actually surveyed, described and platted. Price, et al. v. The Methodist Church, et al.,
869.

CANALS AND CANAL COMMISSIONERS.

The powers of the canal commissioners in controlling the waters of Mad River, and in selling
water privileges. Cooper, et al. v. Williams, 789.

CERTIORARI.

Error in fact may be assigned on certiorari. Hartshorn v. Wilson. 244,

A judgment in attachment before a justice, may be set aside on certiorari, upon proof that the
defendant was a resident of the county, where the writ issued. Hartshorn v. Wilson, 244.
It seems that a certiorari is the proper remedy to the common pleas on an application to redeem
lands sold for taxes. Street v. Franeis, 573.

A writ of certiorari, lies from the Supreme Court, direct to Inferior, Jurisdictions, but will not be
allowed except in extraordinary cases. Burrows v. Vandevier, et al., 613.

SEE Error.

CHALLENGE.

The right of peremptory challenge may be reserved, by the party accused, until after he has made
all his challenges for cause. Hooker v. State of Ohio, 819.

A covenant to convey a part of certain lands, "the other party being at one half the expense of
procuring the title"-The payment of the expenses is a condition precedent, and after a lapse
of years, the expenses not having been paid according to agreement, equity will not decree a
specific performance against the covenantor. A person who demands a specific performance,