Where no name is adopted in the articles of co-partnership, and a contract is made by one part-
ner on the joint account of the film, a note given by such partner, in the name of himself and
Co, is binding on all the partners. Aspinwall v. Williams et al. 33.
The term "currency," in a contract, means current money, unless controlled by other positive
terms in the contract. Dugan v. Campbell, 56.
A contract with an attorney that he shall prosecute suits for the recovery of property, and receive
part of the property recovered as a compensation for his services, and that no compromise
shall be made, except he join in it, is illegal and void. Key v. Vattier, 64.
A contract to pay in current bank notes, is a contract to pay in money, if the bank notes be not
tendered at the day. Smith v. Goddard, 85. S. P. Morris v. Edwards, 85.
Upon a sale of land for taxes, an agreement among several, that they will advance funds and one
shall be y, so as to prevent competition, and afterwards divide the land among them, is illegal,
and equity will relieve against the sale. Dudley et al v. Little et al. 445.
An agreement to conceal, or stifle the prosecution of a felony, is illegal and void. Roll v. Ra-
guel, 842.
An agreement to indemnify a warrantor against his covenant of warranty, can work no prejudice
to the warrantee. Leiby v. Parks et al. 861.
SEE Action, Chancery, Partnership.
A conveyance of real estate by exchange, is invalid. The ancient common law conveyances
as such, have never been adopted in this state. Before the Statute of Frauds, title to real estate
could not be acquired by parol. Lessee of Lindsley v. Coates, 115.
The act of Congress of February 18, 1801, operated per se, as a conveyance, to the Refugees
from Canada and Nova Scotia. Lessee of Allen v. J. R. Parish, 486.
A decree in chancery for the conveyance of lands, operates as such conveyance, if a deed be not
executed within the time limited by the decree. Lessee of Taylor v. Boyd, 601.
SEE Deed, Chancery, Grant.
Assault and Battery will not lie against a corporation.
Orr v, Bank U. States et al. 25,
A deed describing the grantors as a corporation, but executed by the president of the corporation,
in his own name and under his own seal, does not pass the legal title from the corporation,
Hatch v. Barr, 172.
Incorporated towns cannot subject stray animals, owned by persons not residents of such towns,
to their corporation ordinances. The town of Marietta v. Fearing, 847.
Where a corporation, in grading the streets of a town, acts illegally and maliciously, such corpo-
ration is liable for damages, in an action on the case. Goodloe v. The City of Cincinnati,
867.
Corporation may be sued before a Justice of the Peace. Harding v. The Trustees of New-Ha-
ven Township, 547.
The Plaintiff in an action of trespass on real estate, where the damages laid in the declaration
exceed one hundred dollars, is entitled to full costs, without regard to the amount recovered.
Norton v. Hart, 73.
An application by the defendant in ejectment, after a recovery against him, for the appoint-
ment of commissioners to value his improvements, under the occupying claimant law, is a se-
parate proceeding, in which the party prevailing is entitled to costs. Martis case, 74.
Where the application is made by the defendant and a dgment is given in his favour, the court
will order the lessor of the Plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceeding. Ib.
The appellant from a judgment of a justice is entitled to a transcript without paying the costs of
suit. Leffingwel. v. Flint, 133.
After the appearance of the defendant and continuance of the cause, it is error to dismiss it for
want of security for costs: A rule for security should be taken. McVickar v. Ludlow's
Heirs, 353.
In assault and battery and false imprisonment, if the damages assesed are under five dollars, the
Plaintiff can recover no costs. Bell v. Bates, 611.
A tender after suit brought before a justice, of the amount due and the costs then accrued, is a bar
to a recovery of further costs. Hay v. Oosterout, 614.
Where a suit is quashed in the Common Pleas for want of jurisdiction, no judgment for costs can
be given. Nichol v. Patterson, 775.
Covenants are independent, dependent and mutual. Courcier et al. v. Graham, 150.
Where a vendor covenants to make an indisputable title, he must make out a complete connect-
ed paper title. Courcier et al. v. Graham, 150.
The act concerning covenants real does not extend to a deed containing a covenant of seisin as
well as of warranty. The declaration on a covenant of warranty must aver an eviction. In-
nis v. Agnew, 171.
Covenant will not lie upon the penal or obligatory part of a Bond. Huddle v. Worthington,
185.
Where the clause of a deed containing a covenant of seisin, is blank as to the names of those who
are seized, the blank cannot be filled with the names of the grantors, by implication or con-
struction, so as to lender them liable. Day v, Brown, 387.
A covenant to warrant and defend "as executors are bound by law to do," is not a personal
covenant. Ib.
Quere, whether covenant will lie on a warranty without eviction, under the statute in relation to
covenants real., Day v. Brown, 387.
An action of covenant will lie upon a lease in which the plaintiff describes himself as acting as
agent, but covenants as in his own right, where the defendant enters and enjoys the premises,
Potts v, Rider, 475.
A covenant of seisin in a deed, where the covenantor is in possession, claiming title, is a real
covenant running with the land. Backus v. McCoy, 543.
But where the covenant r is not in possession, and the title is bad, the covenant is broken as soon
as ma le, and never attaches to the land, being in the nature of a persoral covenant. Ib.
Seisiu in fact, at the time of the covenant made, is sufficient to sustain the covenant. Ib.
It seems, that the rule of damages under a covenant of seisin, is the consideration money and
interest. Backus v. McCoy, 543.
A declaration upon the covenant of warranty, under the statute concerning covenants real, must
aver an eviction. Robinson v. Neil, 660,
Covenant will not lie upon a penal bond. Abrams v. Kounts et al. 78,
COUNTY AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
A county is responsible for the escape of a prisoner, confined for debt, where the escape happens
for want of a jail, or where the jail is insufficient. 390.
Where the Sheriff has been subjected for such an escape he may sustain an action on the case
against the Commissioners of the county. Commissioners of Brown County v. Butl, 390.
The original surveys and entries in the office of the County Commissioners are admissible in evi-
dence instead of authenticated copies. King v. Kenny, 722.
The Supreme Court is the Successor and Representative of the General Court of the Territory.
Conn v. Doyle, 378.
The Court cannot try the facts of a case without the consent of both parties. Mills v. Noles
The Judges of the Common Pleas are not disqualified by interest, to try a cause, where the Com-
missioners of the county are parties, and money the subject of controversy. The Commis-
sioners of Clermont County v. Lytle, 581.
SEE Bills of Exception, Practice.
CURTESY. SEE Tenant by the Curtesy.
The value agreed upon between the parties is the proper rule of damages, in a breach of contract,
where no fraud is alledged. Courcier et al. v. Graham, 150.
Where an endorsed note is left by the holder with a cashier of a bank for collection, and the
cashier neglects to take the proper steps to charge the end orser, in a suit against him by the
holder, the damages are merely nominal, unless the Plaintiff prove the maker insolvent.
Hough v. Young, 216.
In a suit upon a contract to pay in notes of a specific bank, the market value of such notes can-
not be substituted as the rule of damages, but the plaintiff is entitled to their numerical value
in money Edwards v. Morris, 222.
The rule of damages upon a covenant of seisin is the consideration money and interest. Back us
v. McCoy, 543.
Equity will decree damages where a vendor disables himself to convey lands. Gibbs v. Cham-
pion, 599.
Where a bond recites that the obligors "are held and firmly bound in the penalty of 1000 dolls.
for the performance of a marriage contract, which H. R. engages to perform with M. A.”—
the 1000 dolls. is to be deemed a penalty and not liquidated damages. Abrams v. Kounts et
al. 780.
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.
A debtor may prefer one creditor to another. Barr v. Hatch et al. 662.
SEE Chancery, Judgment.
The ordinance of Congress of 1787, requiring deeds to be attested by two witnesses was virtually
repealed by the law of August 1, 1795, and from the passage of the latter act until June 1,
1805, subscribing winesses were unnecessary if the deed were acknowledged by the grantor.
Lessee of Moore v. Vance, 5.
The omission to record a deed does not render it void as against a subsequent purchaser; its va-
lidity depends upon the fact of notice to the subsequent purchaser, and such notice may be
proved by parol. Lessee of Cunningham et al. v. Buckingham, 127.
A conveyance made voluntarily by a debtor to his creditor, is without consideration, if the par-
ties afterwards treat the debt as still subsisting. 146.
The re-delivery of a deed by the grantee to the grantor, is not a re-conveyance of the title. Starr
v. Starr et al. 146.
No continuance of possession for any time less than where the Statute of limitation would ope-
rate to bar a recovery in ejectment, is sufficient to warrant the presumption of a deed. 150.
A deed attested by one witness, since 1805, does not convey the legal title. Courcier et al. v.
Graham, 150.
A deed describing the grantors as a corporation, but executed by the President of the Corpora-
tion, in his own name and under his own seal, does not pass the legal title from the corpora-
tion. Hatch v. Barr, 172.
Under particular circninstances, another consideration than that expressed in the deed may be
shown. Steele et al. v. Worthington, 312.
An assignment by a grantee upon the back of his deed "of all his right and title in the deed" to
the plaintiff, does not pass such a title as will enable him to recover in ejectment. Lessee of
Bentley's Heirs v. Deforest, 329.
Where a deed calls for a corner standing on the bank of a creek "thence down said creek with
the meanders thereof" the boundary is the water edge, at low water mark. Lessee of Me-
Cullock, v. Aten 373.
Where the clause of a deed containing a covenant of seisin, is blank as to the names of those who
are seized, the blank cannot be filled with the names of grantors by implication. Day v.
Brown, 387.
A deed to county commissioners for a lot on which to erect a jail, though defective as a convey-
ance, is good as a licence to ente. and possess for the purposes specified. Lessee of Sullivant
v. The Commissioners of Franklin county, 478.
A deed, if properly executed is good between the parties, though not recorded. Lessee of Allen
v. J. R. Parish, 486.
The Act of Congress of Feb. 18, 1801, operated per se as a conveyance to the Refugees from
Canada and Nova Scotia. Lessee of Allen v. J. R. Parish, 486.
A certificate of the relinquishment of dower is sufficient, if it contain a substantial enumeration
of the acts required by the statute, though the words be not followed. Brown v. Farron, 508.
A tax deed does not per se transfer the title. Holl's heirs v. Hemphill's heirs, 551.
The delivery of a deed confers possession without an actual entry.
Lessee of Holt's Heirs v.
Hemphill's heirs, 551.
Where a deed of trust is executed by the grantor and recorded, and the grantee agrees to
accept the trust, there is a sufficient delivery of the deed. Steel v. Lowry et al., 718.
The deed of a deputy sheriff, for lands sold on execution by himself or the sher.ff, is valid.
Les see of Laines v. Lindsey, 726.
It is indispensable to the validity of a grant that the grantee be capable of receiving it: that is,
that he be a person in esse, at the time of the grant.
A deed by a tenant in common, purporting to convey
the grantors undivided part, within its boundaries.
SEE Conveyance. Fraudulent Conveyance.
and Bounds.
DEPUTY SHERIFF. SEE Sheriff.
in severalty, is a good conveyance for
Lessee of White v. Sayre, 269.
Sheriff's Deed. Estopped. Metes
Where a party locates and surveys lands and dies before patent, and the patent afterwards
issues to his heirs, they take by descent and not by purchase. Lessee of Bond v. Swearen-
gen, 174.
A divorce will not be granted where the applicant is living in adultery. Mattox v. Mattox, 336,
Where the vendor of a tract of land, having a lien for the purchase money, obtains a judgment
against the administrator of the vendee, upon which the land is sold for a sum sufficient to
pay the whole amount, the lien does not pass to the purchaser of the land, so as to enable
him to set it up against the dower estate of the widow of the original vendee. McArthur
v. Porter, 44.
The widow of a deceased partner is not entitled to dower in lands purchased by the partnership
funds, the partnership being insolvent. Greene v. Greene et al., 227.
A widow who is entitled to dower, and is present at the sale of the lands under an order of
court, and assents that the sale may be made free from her dower, in consequence of which
Smiley v. Wright et al
the purchaser pays a higher price, is thereby barred from her dower.
Where the husband makes a devise to the widow, without stating that it is or is not in bar of
dower, and the widow makes an agreement with the heir reciting that it is in lieu of dower,
and that she accepts certain things in satisfaction of the devise, the widow is barred of her
dower. Shotwell et ux. v. Sedam's heirs, 450.
A widow is not entitled to dower in lands given by her husband for a market house. Guynne
et ux. v. The City of Cincinnati, 459.
A certificate of the relinquishment of dower is sufficient, if it contain a substantial enumeration
Brown v. Farran,
of the acts required by the statute, though the words be not followed.
Where the mortgage money is due and unpaid, the mortgagee may recover the mortgaged
premises in ejectment. Lessee of Ely v. McGuire, 330.
A party in possession of land, which has been sold on judgment and execution against
him, cannot defend himself in ejectment, against the purchaser at sheriff's sale by setting up
mortgage executed by himself, before the judgment became a lien on the premises. Lessee
of Phelps v. Butler, 331.
An equitable title connected with possession is no bar to an ejectment. The only notice neces-
sary to enable a plaintiff to recover in ejectinent, is the ten days notice required by the stat-
ute. Lessee of Spencer et al v. Markle, 356.
Tenants in common may make a joint demise. Doe ex dem. Wilkinson v. Fleming, 370.
A deed from the lessor of the plaintiff, made after the suit is brought is inadmissible to defcat
the plaintiff's recovery. Lessee of Dawson v. Porter, 371.
Where the plaintiff shows that the original grantor was within the exception of the statute of
limitations, proof that others deriving interest under the grantee are not within such excep-
tion, is unnecessary: if relied on to defeat a recovery it must come from the defendant.
Doe, ex dem. Thompson et al. v. Gibson et al., 385.
The plaintiff may recover upon a possessory title alone. Lessee of Devacht v. Newsam, 468.
Mere intruders cannot question the validity of a patent under which the plaintiff in ejectment
claims. Lessee of Holl's heirs v. Hemphill's heirs, 551.
A descent cast is no bar to a ejectment, 1b.
An actual entry is not necessary; the delivery of a deed confers possession. Ib.
A pla ntiff in ejectment may recover against a disseisor on a possessory title alone, where the
defendant sets up no title. Lessee of Ludlow's 'eirs v. Barr, 616.
Where a plaintiff relies on his possessory title alone, and the defendant shows a paper title in
himself, and the defendant then shows a better paper title than the defendant's in a stranger,
but in no way connects himself with it, he cannot recover. Lessee of Ludlow's Heirs v. Barr,
616.
The court cannot compel the tenant or any one else to enter into the consent rule and defend; a
discretionary power only is vested in the court, to be exercised on application of the tenant, or
landlord, or other proper person. Doe v. Roe, 850.
A prochein amie cannot make a demise. Lessee of Massie's Heirs v. Long et al, 364.
A writ of error may be brought in the name of the casual ejector. Roe v. The Bank U. States,
460.
An entry vague and uncertain at the time it is made, cannot be sustained, in consequence of its
calls having obtained subsequent notariety. Kerr et al. v. Mack, 77. S. P. McArthur v.
Phabus et al. 426.
The owner of an entry and survey may alien the lands embraced in such survey, and where a
patent afterwards issues to him or his heirs, the leg 1 title enures to the benefit of his grantee
and all persons claiming under such grantee. Lessee of Bond v. Swearengen, 174.
A survey did not so appropriate lands as to render a subsequent entry void, in cases that occurred
before the Act of Congress of 1807. Lands cannot e appropriated withont an entry, and
where the survey and patent incl de lan s not embraced in the entry, such land is subject to
entry as vacant land, and the patentee or those claiming under him shall be decreed to convey
to the subsequent locator. Hastings v. Stephenson, 232.
Construction of an entry. Ib.
An invalid entry may obtain sufficient notoriety and become a good location call. McArthur
v. Phabus et al. 426.
A complainant having obtained a patent as assignee, is not bound to prove the assignment, Ib.
The doctrine of notice has no application between the claimants of conflicting Vir. Mil. titles.
Ib.
The plea of innocent purchaser, cannot protect the purchaser of a title originally defective,
against a better adverse title. Ib.
|