Before the act of 1824, the assignment of a lease tested by one witness was good. Lessee of Bis-
bee v. Hall, 627.

A lease for 99 years renewable forever may be sold on execution. Ib.

A leasehol i estate may be protected in equity. Heirs of Ludlow v. Kidl et al. 671.

LETTER OF CREDIT.

A letter from M. to B. authorizing a general credit to P. is not sufficient to charge M. for gods
sold to P. by persons to whom the letter was never presented, but who had heard of its con-
tents. McClung et al. v. Means, 773.

LEVY.

A writ of error and supersedeas does not vacate a levy on real estate. Arnoll v. Fuller's
Heirs, 202.

A levy on real estate is not affected by quashing the vendi, and setting aside the valuation. 18.
Where a fi. fa. is returned levied upon real estate, another fi. fa. issued before the first levy is
disposed of is void. Ib.

Where a levy is set aside the parties stand in the same situation as if no levy had been made.
Patton v. The Sheriff of Pickaway county, 414.

An application to set aside a levy is addresse to the sound discretion of the court and is not
subject to revision in the Supre ne Court. Bliss v. Enslow, 567.

A levy on one hundred acres of land; in section four, township seven, range four, without further
description is defective, but the defect inay be remelied by parol testimony. Lessee of Math-
ers v. Thompson et al. 569.

SEE Execution. Judgment.

LICENSE.

A deed to county commissioners for a lot on which to erect a Jail, though defective as a con-
veyance, is good as a license to enter and possess for the purposes specified. Heirs of Sulli-
vant v. The Commissioners of Franklin county, 478.

LIEN. SEE Judgment.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. SEE Statute of Limitations.

LIS PENDENS. SEE Notice.

MANDAMUS.

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 State of Ohio v. Todd
et al. 820.

MANUFACTURING COMPANIES.

Manufacturing Companies are subject to the laws of Partnership. Wells et al. v. Wilson et
al. 622.

SEE Partnership.

METES AND BOUNDS.

Where a deed calls for a corner standing on the bank of a cek "thence down ra'd creek with
the meanders thereof,” the boundary is the water edge at low water mark. Lessee of McCul-
lock v. Aten, 373.

"Seventy acres, being and lying in the south-west corner" of a section is a good description, and
the land will lie in a square. Lessee of Walsh v. Ringer, 381.

Course and Distance must yield to natural objects, where, and where not. Lessee of McCoy v.
Galloway, 576.

A variance between the levy and the description in the Sheriff's deed may be explained by
parol. Lessee of Mathews v. Thompson et al. 569.

MILITARY.

The Colonel is not liable upon orders drawn on the Paymaster of the Regiment. Smurr v.
Forman, 13.

MINUTES OF COURT.

The minutes of the daily proceedings of courts for
ered as the form fation of an assignment of error.
How the minutes should be kept. 16.

MONEY. SEE Banks and Bank Notes.

MORTGAGE.

no part of the record, nor can they be consid-
Harvey et al v. Brown et al, 1:29.

A jugent upon a sei. fa. on a mortgage, extinguishes a bond, note, or other evidence of the
o: gual debt. Reeder v. Burgelt, 75.

Were the mortgage money is due and unpaid, the mortgagee may recover the mortgaged premi-
ses in ej ctment. Lessee of Ely v. McGuire, 330.

An equity of redemption may be sold on execution. Ib. S. P. Lessee of Phelps v. But-
ler, 331.

The title of mortgaged premises remains in the mortgagor as against all the world, except the
mortgagee, and also as against hin until the mortgage is forfeited. 15. S. P. Lesser of
Phelps v. Butler, 331.

It is not sufficient to postpone a prior record mortgage, that the first mortgagee, assisted as
counsel in preparing a second morigige. Paine v. French et al. 807.

The assignment of a note secmed by mortgage, and a delivery of the mortgage deed without an
actual ass gument, transfers all the gh secured by the mortgage. Ib.

A subs quent purcha er from a mortgagor cannot re 'eem again-t a purchaser under a judgment
on sei.fa. upon the mortgage, though no party to the proceedings on the sci. fa. Dennison
v. Allen, 866.

Upon a bill to foreclose the equity of redemption, tre Court will direct the premises to be ap-
praised and will or her a sale if two thirds the appraised value exceeds the debt. Anonymous.
409.

Lands mortgaged since June 1805 must be soll on execution in the manner prescribed by the
execution law in force when the sile is made. Lessee of Allen v. O. Parish, 526.

SEE Chancery.

MOTION. SEE Practice.

NEW TRIAL.

Where justice is done by a verdict, a new trial will not be granted on technical grounds. Buck
v. Waddle tal. 163. SEE Gist v. Lybrand, 591.

Equity will not order a new trial at law where the party seeking it has been guilty of neglect.
Dorfinger v. Coil 375. SE Waddle et al. v. B. U. States, 384.

If jurors seperate after agreeing upon a verdict, without leave, it is no ground for a new trial.
Wright v. Eurchfeld, 466.

The misbehaviour of jurors, in a civil case, which wou'd render it necessary to disturb the ver
dict, should be of such character as to evince bad intentions. Ib.

A new trial will not be granted because t e Court gave a wrong reason for rightly rejecting testi-
mony. Lessee of Ludlow's Ileirs v. Park, 699.

Upon a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered testimon“, such testimony
must be disclosed, that the Court may exercise a sound discretion in granting or refusing the
motion. 16.

Where an appeal is quashed for 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 showing probable ground that
the appellant ha a cise a: law. Oliver et al. v Pray, 766.

Such new trial may be hid in the Supreme Court. B.

NOTES. SEE Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

NOTICE.

Parol evidence is admissible, at low, to show that a subsequent pu.chaser had notice of a prior
unrecorded deed. Lessee of Cun agham et al. v. Buckingham, 127.

Adverse possession ia suh case is strong presumptive evidence of notice. 15.

A fina, decree is not notice to a sub-eq tent purchaser. Turner v. Crebill et al., 167.

In foreign attachmeut un er the ct of 1810, it s error to render judgment unless three months
notice be given. Callwill. The Bank of Steubenville, 334.

The doctrine o. notice has no application between the claimants of conflicting ti les in the Virginia
Mil. District. McArthur v. Phæʼbus et al. 426.

A writ of error, before citation serve, is not such a lis pendens, as will operate as notice to a
purchaser. Lessee of Taylor v. Boyd, 601.

Lis pendens, is constructive notice to a purchaser. Heirs of Ludlow v. Kidd et al. 671.
A patent was issued to N. as assignee of the administrator of H. R, deceased”—such recital is
sufficient to put a sub-equent purch ser from the patentee upon e: quiring for the night of the
heirs, and he must at his peți!, ase rtain whethe those rights have been regularly extinguish.
ed. Reeder et al v. Barr et al. 852.

SEE Pleas and Pleadings.

NUISANCE.

Nichol v. Patterson, 775.
erects a mill dam which cre-

Justices of the Peace have no juris liction in cases of Nuisance.
An action on the case for a nuisance, 1 es against an indiviual wh
ates disease and sickness, and in such case it is no defence, that the injury affects the whole
neighborhood; nor is the civil reme 'y merged by an indictment and conviction for the same of-
fence. Story v. Hammond, et al. 833.

OCCUPYING CLAIMANTS.

An application by the defen fant in ejectment, after a recovery against him, for the appoitment
of Commissioners to value nis improvements unde the occupying claimant law, is a separate
proceeding, in which the party prevailing is entled to costs. Martin's Case, 74.
When such application is ma te by the defendant, and a judgment is given in his favour, the
Court will or ler the lessor of the Plaintiff to pay the costs of the procee ling, Ib.

An occupying claimant is ent tled to recover for improvements made on the land before his title
commenced. Lessie of Shaler v. Magin, 333.

A Sister State may be Plaintiff in the Courts of Ohio. Spencer v. Brockway.

The distributees of the personal estate of an in ́estite cunot jo'n in an action against the ad-
ministrator for the'r proper share. Waldsmith v. Wallsmith, 298.

SEE Pleas and Pleading. Chancery, Action.

PARTNERSHIP.

In order to cons iute a partnership, a communion of profi's and loss between the parties is es-
sential, and this is the true criterion to determine, whether persons are partners or not.
Aspinwall v. Williams et al, 39.

Articles of agreement assigning to each party the performance of certain things to put the busi-
ness into operation, constitutes a partnership immediately, and not from the commencement
of the business itself.

Ib.

Where no name is adopted in the articles of co-partnership, and a contract is made by one part-
ner on the joint account, a te given by such partner, in the name of himself and Co. is bind-
ing on all. Ib. S. P. Taylor v. Williams et al. 252.

A widow is not entitled to dower in the partnership lands, the partnership being insolvent and
the lands purchase with the partner-hip funds. Green v. Green et al. 227.

Evidence that a sa'e of goods to C. was made upon an understanding that W. was his partner,
and upon the credit of W. is admissible against W. but is of no avail without other proof of
the partnership. Taylor v. Williams et al. 252.

Where upon an equitable adjustment of partnership transactions, two parties, are in equity cre-
ditors of a third partner, equity will set off such credits against a joint debt due from the same
two parties to the third. Sarchel v. Sarchet, 379.

Where one of two partners, without the knowledge of the other, substitutes the partnership for his
individual endorsement on an accommodation note, he is individually accountable to his co-
partner for any consequent loss. Smith v. Loring, 437.

The recognition and payment of such endorsement does not change the liabilities between the
partners. lb.

An agreement to abandon such claim against his copartner, though made for a good considera-
tion, may be relieved against under circumstances of unfairness and imposition. Ib,
Equity will not lend its aid to subject the separate property of one partner to the payment of the
partnership debts, while the joint property of the firm is unexhausted, Hubble v. Perrin et al. 580
A manufacturing association is a joint stock company, subject to the law of partnership, and its
officers may without special authority, bind the company for a loan of mou●♥; as between the
members themselves the stock may be assigned so as to discharge the assignor, though the
mode prescribed be not pursued, if the company receive and treat the assignee as a partner
and cease to regard the assignor as such, Wells et al. v. Wilson et al. 622.

PATENT. SEE Deed. Conveyance.

PATENT RIGHT. SEE Steam Doctors.

PAUPERS.

A minor obtains a settlement, in the township where his father was legally settled, and can by no
art of his own while a minor obtain a legal settlement elsewhere. Trustees of Jefferson town-
ship v. Trustees of Letart township, 481.

A person gains a legal settlement in a township, though warned on the first settlement, if the
warning is not repeated every year. Trustees of Wayne township v. Trustees of Stock
township, 516.

PAYMENT.

Payment. Brown v. Brabham et al. 571,

PLEAS AND PLEADINGS.

In an action on the case founded upon a judgment from a sister State, a liability and breach
must be averred in the declaration. Spencer v. Brockway, 123.

Non est factum, puts nothing in issue but the execution of the instrument declared upon. Cour-
cier et al v. Graham, 385.

Non est factum it seems is so far a general issue that under it, notice of special matter may
be given. Ib.

A declaration on the covenant of warranty must aver an eviction. Innis v. Agnew, 171 S. P.
Robinson v. Neil, 660.

A declaration upon a promissory note is good without averrments of indebtedness, liability, as-
sumption. Mors v. McCloud, 230. S. P. Richmond v. Patterson et al G08.

INDEX.

A note partly destroyed may be declared upon as entire and proof given on the trial of the mu-
tilated part. Duckwwall v. Weaver, 234.

A verdict and judgment against one joint trespasser, cannot be pleaded in bar to a separate ac-
tion for ti e same trespass, against another joint trespasser. Wright v. Lathrop, 247.
Where the defendants are named in the declaration as admintstrators, evidence may be given to
Waldsmith v. Waldsmith, 238.
charge them in their in ividual characters.

In slander a plea of justification is bad on demurrer if it do not distinctly admit the speaking of
the words. Davis v. Matthews, 352.

A declaration upou an endorsement of a promissory note guarantying payment by the maker,
Green v. Dodge et al. 436.

must set out the consideration of such endorsement.

That goods are taken in execution and are undisposed of is a good plea in bar to an action on an
appeal bond. Cass v. Adams et al. 545.

A person who sues as heir must show himself such in the declaration. Treasurer of Pickaway
v. Hall, 546.

Churchill v. Kimble, 618.
Ib.

A former recovery must be pleaded. Inman v. Jenkins, 568,
In slander, separate sets of words may be laid in the same count.
Quere, whether the substance only of the words may be charged.
It is a general rule, that where a matter does not lie more properly in the knowledge of one of the
Bush et al. v. Richfield et al. 736.
parties than the other, notice need not be averred.
Where persons covenant as sureties, that their principal shall sell and account for all goods pla-
ced in his hands within a stated period, it is not necessary to aver notice to the securities, of a
lb.
failure, in an action on the covenant,

Whenever an individual undertakes to justify a trespass, under the authority of Government,that
authority must be traced to some officer of the Government, known and recognised by law as
such. Fulton v. Monahan, 846.

When the defendant justifies the breaking the close of the plaintiff and carying away stone for
the construction of the National Road, the p'ea must set forth the facts that constitute a ne-
cessity for such invasion of private right. Ib.

When a Plaintiff undertakes to set out his title he must set out a good one.

The Cincinnati

Water Company v. The City of Cincinnati, 851.
When the Plaintiff claims title in his declaration under an ordinance and from his own showing
it appears, that his right depend upon certain terms in said ordinance expressed," such
terms must be set forth in the declaration.

POOR. SEE Paupers.

POSSESSION.

Ib.

The purchaser at Sheriff's sale has neither the actual or constructive possession. Beggs v.
Thomson, 266.

Actual entry is not necessary to perfect a title, the delivery of a deed confers a possession. Les-
see of Holt's heirs v. Hemphill's heirs, 551.

Seisin in fact sufficient to sustain a covenant of seisin. Backus v. McCoy, 543.

SEE Trespass, Ejectment, Adverse Possession.

POUNDAGE.

Poundage is only due to the Sheriff when he has actually made and received the money on ex-
ecution. He is not entitled to poundage when the money is paid by the debtor directly to the
pla ntiff.
Vance v. Bank of Columbus, 327.

POWERS. SEE Chancery. Executors and Administrators.

Wills.

PRACTICE. For Chancery Practice, SEE Chancery.

A Court will never investigate the rights of parties settled by themselves, except upon suggestion

of fraud or imposition. Emerick v. Armstrong et al. 218