GUARDIAN AND WARD.

A decree in equity against a guardian, touching the real estate of his ward, does not affect the
ward unless he be a party to the suit. Este et al. v. Strong et al, 418.

Where a guardian has given a lien upon real estate claimed by and in possession of his ward,
such lien cannot be overreached by the ward purchasing a paramount title. Ib.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM.

It is error on a bill of revivor, to decree against infant defendants, until a guardian ad litem be
appointed, accept the appointment and either appear or be served with process. Heirs of St.
Clair et al, v. Smith et al. 603.

GUARANTY.

A declaration upon an endorsement of promisory note guarantying payment by the maker, must
set out the consideration of such endorsement. Greene v. Dodge et al. 436.

The guarantor upon such endorsement is not liable without a demand and notice of non-pay-
ment. Ib.

HEIR.

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.

When the ancestor conveys with warranty the heir is estopped to claim the same land. Ib. S, P.
Lessee of Allen v. J. R. Parish, 486.

HIGHWAY.

An order for opening a highway forty feet wide is erronious, the law requiring it to be sixty feet.
Burrows v. Vandevier et al. 613,

INDICTMENT.

An action on the case for a nuisance is not merged in an Indictment and conviction for the same
offence. Story v. Hammond et al. 833.

Where the scienter is part of the statutory description of an offence, it must be so laid in the in-
dictment. Gatewood v. The State of Ohio, 838.

Where the prisoner is indicted for stealing a grey horse, proof that the animal stolen was a grey
gelding, is a fatal variance. Hooker v. The State of Ohio, 819.

The insolvent laws of a sister State discharging debtors from the debt upon surrendering up all
their property, are valid as to contracts made between citizens of the same State and within
its jurisdiction, after the law was enacted and while in force. Smith v, Parsons, 110.
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.
The original application of an Insolvent debtor is ex parte. Loines et al v. Philips, 376.
Where an application of an Insolvent debtor is dismissed upon hearing on the ground that he
was not two years a resident, his sureties are liable. Ib.
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.

When the Commissioner fails to advertise, and the party appears at a subsequent term, in good
faith, and obtains a discharge, the condition of the bond is saved, though a specified term be
named in the condition. Ib.

It is the duty of the Commissioner to cause the proper advertisements to be made. Ib.

An assignment to trustees by an Insolvent in Pennsylvania under the laws of that State, does
neither pass the legal title to the trustees, nor create an equity, to be enforced in chancery, to
lands situate in Ohio. Rogers et al. v. Allen, 639.

The security in a bond for the assignment of property by an Insolvent, is liable for the whole
debt of the creditor on a breach of the bond, though the Insolvent had no property to assigns.
Loines et al. v. Philips, 376.

An action lies against the Commissioner of Insolvents and his sureties before the debt is estab-
lished by judgment against the Commissioner. State of Ohro v. Sherman et al. 657.

INSURANCE.

The rule of one third new for old, in the law of marine Insurance, is applicable to the insurance
of steam-boats on the Ohio River, Wallace v. The Ohio Insurance Company, 785.

INTEREST.

An agreement to pay interest upon interest, after the interest has accrued, is not usurious. Fobes
et al v. Cantfield, 455.

An agreement, after interest is due, to turn it into principal is valid. Watkinson v. Root, 831.
An action will lie to recover interest due, and in such action, interest may be recovered upon
the interest after it becomes due. Ib、

JAIL.

The prison bounds as established by the Court of Common Pleas in pursuance of the Statute,
are to be considered as the extension of the four walls of the prison, and while the prisoner is
within those limits, he is to every legal intent a prisoner, and as such entitled to support. But-
tles v. Carleton et al. 22.

The Plaintiff in execution is not bound to furnish lodgings to the defendant while within the pri-
son limits, though he makes oath that he is unable to support himself. Ib.

A debtor imprisoned within the Jail limits, may go into private houses, or labour on private
ground within such limits, without being guilty of an escape. Lucky v. Brandon et al. 31.
The prison limits may be defined by mathematical lines or by artificial monuments. Ib.
The Sheriff has no authority to provide a Jail, or to imprison a debtor in any other place than
the public Jail. Campbell v. Hampson, 57.

No action lies against the Sheriff for imprisoning a debtor in the same room with criminals, if the
county Jail contains but one apartment. Ib.

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

A recital that he is arrested and in the custody of the Sheriff, is insufficient. Ib.

A joint bond for the prison limits in separate suits is void. Ib.

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. Commissioners of Brown county v
Butt, 390.

SEE Action on the Case.

JOINT TENANTS.

Estates in Joint Tenancy have no existence in the State of Ohio. Sergeant v. Steinberger et al.
372.

JUDGMENT.

I. LIEN.

II. ARREST.

III. DIVERS MATTERS.

I. LIEN.

FOR EQUITABLE LIEN, See Vendor and Vendee.

The judgment of a Court of record operates as a lien upon the real estate of the defendant
and this principle has been recognised from the commencement of the administration of Jus-
tice in the Territory north west of the Ohio River. Roads v. Symmes et al. 138.

Such lien is co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the Court, but does not attach to after-acquired
lands, until actual levy. Ib.
S. P. Phelps v. Butler 331. S. P, Stiler ex dem. Miller

et al. v. Murphy 729.

A Judgment does not operate as a lien upon an equitable interest. Jackman v. Hallock et al.
144.

The award of an execution upon sci. fa. upon a Justices judgment, is no lien till actual levy.
Jackman v. Hallock, 144.

Judgments are not per se liens upon property, either real or personal, but how far they shall so
operate depends upon legislative enactment. McCormick v. Alexander, 254.

Under the execution law of 1824, judgment creditors who had not sued out and levied execution
within one year from the date of the judgment, lose their lien as against subsequent judgment
creditors, who had sued out and levied execution within one year, and this too in cases of
judgments before the enactment of the law as well as after it. Ib.

A mortgage executed in January 1821, for the express purpose of keeping the property out of
the reach of a creditor who had commenced his suit, and retained by the mortgagor in his own
possession until 1823, and then delivered and recorded, cannot overreach the lien of a judg-
ment rendered in July 1821. Hood v. Brown. 357,

Under the executive law of 1824, a levy made within the year from the date of the judgment,
and set aside after the expiration of the year, loses the lien as against subsequent judgments
upon which a levy is made within the year and continued until the sale. Patton v. The Sheriff
of Pickaway County, 414.
Where a guardian has given a lien upon real estate, claimed by and in possession of his ward,
such iien cannot be overreached by the ward purchasing a paramount title. Este et al. v.
Strong et al. 418.

A judgment confessed during the return terin upon process issued on the first day of the term,
is a lien from the commencement of the term. Urbanna Bank v, Baldwin, 473.
Under the execution law of 1824, the priority of lien is lost, if the execution is not proceeded up-
on, according to the provisions of that act, although the defendant was surety, and execution
against him was stayed by order of the court under the Statute authorizing such order. Earn-
fit v. Winans, 504.

To take a case out of the operation of the 17th Sec. of the execution law of 1824, a levy must
have been made on the property in question, within a year from the rendition of the judgment
and a levy on other property, though within the year, will not save the lien, as to the property
not levied on. Shuee et al. v. Ferguson et al. 505.

If there are several judgments, and the property in question has not been levied on within the
year, under either of them, they stand on an equal footing, and the creditor who first takes out
execution and causes a levy to be made, has the priority. Ib.

If execution on an older judgment had not been levied on a particular piece of property within
the year, and an execution on a junior judgment has been levied on that property within the
year, the junior judgment must have the preference, though a levy may have been made on
the same property, under the older judgment, before the levy was made on the junior judg
Ib.

ment.

The lien of such junior Judgment, on all property not levied on under the older Judgment with-
in the year, must continue for one year from its date, to the exclusion of the older Judgment
provided the junior judgment was rendered, before the levy was made on the older judgment;
but a levy on the older judgment, though after the year, if made before the date of the junior
judgment will have the preference. lb.

Case of priority of Lien. Waymire Staley et al. 606.

Equity will not enforce the lien of a judgment against the real estate of a debtor who dies after
judgment; the existence of such lien as well as the method of enforcing it is purely a matter of law ·
Mi. Ex. Co. v. Turpine et al. 655.

The lien of a judgment is not discharged as against a subsequent purchaser, by a release of chat-
Forly. Skinner
tels once levied up n, by the mutual assent of the parties to the executi n.
et al. 835.

Mazy made upon a junior judgment, in life, cannot be distribute in wrong e'ĉer ju 'gments upon
which executions have not been issue for lez ed within five years and which have not been re-
vive!. Ltle et al. The Cincinnati Man. Company, 854.

If a person advance money to pay the deb s of the mestite, he thereby acquires no lien upon
the lands of the intestate in the hands of the heir. Ley v. Parks et al. 801.

II. ARREST OF JUDGMENT.

When the title of the pla wiff is defectively set out in the declaration, and the defendant in his
plea supplies the facts omitte 4 in the declaration, the ju 'gment will not be arrested after ver
dict. McFeely v. Vantyle, 321.

Where there is a general verdict for the plaintiff upon a declaration containing several counts,
and one of the counts is defective, judgment will be arrested. Maxfield v. Johnston et al.
323.

A count founde I upon a receipt for money without alle 'ging that the money was received for the
use of the plaintiff, is not so defective that judgment will be arrested after verdict. Ib.

III. DIVERS MATTERS.

A judgment upon a sci fu, on a mortgage, extinguishes a bond, note or other evidence of the
original debt. Reedy v. Eurget, 75.

Trust estates are not liable to ju lgmen's against the trustee. Man ley v. Hunt et al. 122.
Judgments regular'y obtained in ot er States, against defendants who have been served with
process, or have otherwise appeared and had an opportunity of making a defence, are to be re-
ceived as conclusive evidence, and no re-examination of the grounds on which they are ren-
dered can be permitted, but where the defendant has not been served with process, or not
had an opportunity of making a defence, it seems the recor is considered only prima facie
evidence and may be impeached. Spencer v. Brockway, 123.

The Court of Common Ple is cannot amend a final ja 'gment at a term subsequent to i ́s
's rendition,
except in matter of form. Botkin et al. v. The Commissioners of Pickaway County, 1 x.
Process against two, one not served, declaration against one, appearance and p'ea by one, ver-
dict and judgment against both in the Suprem Court; the judgment may be amended at a
subsequent term by st iking out the name of the defendant not served. Hammer v. Mc-
Connell, 245.

The form of the judgment is not necessarily controlled by the descriptio personae, in the decla
ration. Waldsmith v. Waldsmith, 238.

In an action on a Sheriff's bon, the judgment must be for the debt, with
tion for the damages; a judgment for damages only, is erroneous.
sioners of Licking County, 375.

leave to take out execu
Smith v. The Commis-

A defen tant cannot be concluded by an adjudication to which he was not a party. Thompson
v. Young et al. 383.

A judgment irregularly entered may be set aside at a subsequent term on motion.
Yeateman, 454.

Hunt et al v,

When a Plaintiff appeals to the Supreme Court and recovers no more than in the Common Pleas,
two judgments are entere, one for the Plaintiff for the amount recovered, and the other for the
De endant for costs on the appeal. Wat rs v. Lemmon et al. 476.

A judgment of a court of competent juris fiction, though rendered in a form of proceeding un-
known to our practice, and apparently without service of process, cannot be treated as a nulli-
ty while unreversed. Weyer v. Lane, 589.

Where process is issued against several defen lants, and is served upon part only, and returned
not served as to others, the attorney employed by those served with process enters an appear.
ance for all, but without the knowledge of those not served-Held, that in a bill for contribu
tion by those served, the others were not concluded by the judgment. Coz v. Hill et al
619.

A general judgment cannot be amended at a subsequent term so as to make it special. Green
v. Dodge et al. 638.

An order of a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be questioned in a collateral action. Heirs
of Ludlow v. Johnson et al. 679.

A nunc pro tune oder annot be made at a subsequent term where the power and jurisdiction of
the court have terminated. lb.

A nunc pro tune order cannot be founded upon parc proof of what was ordered to be done at a
previotis term. Ib.

However summary or regular the judgment of a competent tribunal may be, it cannot be treat-
ed as a rullity. Buell v. Cross, 813.

Judgments confessed in person, or by power of attorney, in open court, are valid without process
or other pleadings; but such judgment must be taken in term time. Lessee of Matthews ▼,
Thomson et al, 569.

JURISDICTION.

In cases certified to the court of cominon Pleas upon attachment from Justices of the peace, the
jur sdiction of the common Pleas is original, not appellate and an appeal lies to the Supreme
Court. Vanclere v. Wilson, 323.

Justices of the peace have no jurisdiction in cases of nuisance. Nichol v. Patterson, 775.
SEE Judgment.

JURY.

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

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Justices of the peace have no jurisdiction in cases of nuisance. Nichol v Patterson, 775.
A corporation may be sued before a Justice of the peace. Harding v. Trustees of New-Haven
township, 547.

The appellant is not bound to pay the costs before he is entitled to a transcript, and if the Justice
refuses a transcript until the costs are paid, he is liable to the appellant. Leffingwell ▼
Flint, 133.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

A Tenant or those claim ng under him cannot controvert the title of the Landlord; but may
show that it is determined. Lessee of Devath v. Newsam, 468. S. P. Moore v. Beasly, 585.

LANDS.

Wills

It is not in the power of any State by any legislative act, to prescribe the mode in which lands in
another State may be disposed of, or the title thereto pass from one person to another.
v. Cowper et al. 278

Under the laws of Congress, the legal title to lands does not vest until the Patent issues. Reads
v. Symmes et al. 138.

The ancient common law conveyances of real estate, have never been adopted in the State of
Ohio. Lessee of Lindsley v Coats, 115.

SEE Deeds. Ejectment. Chancery. Executors and Administrators.

LEASE.

A leas for School lands is not valid unless it be acknowledged by the grantors before a Judge or
Justice. Lessec of Atkinson v. Daily, 326.

When a lessee a signs a part of the premises to a third person, for the whole term of the lease, it
is but an underleasing and the lessor can sustain no action on the lease for rent against the
assignee. Fulton et al. v. Stuart, 328.

A parol lease and possession delivered is not within the statute of frauds. Moore v. Beasly,