The Statute of Wills in Ohio is more comprehensive than that of Hen. VIII. Lessee of Smith et al. v. Johnson et al. 744.

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

Possession given under a parol contract for leasing land, and performance by the lessee, takes the case out of the Stature of frauds, Wilber v. Paine, 118.

A written memorandum that the Plaintiff will allow the defendant credit for a certain debt due to the defendant from a third person, is not within the Statute of frauds. Hoover v. Morris, 467. A parol lease and possession delivered is not within the Statute of frauds. Moore v. Beasly, 585. A voluntary conveyance made for the purpose of defrauding creditors is not void as between the parties, but only as against creditors and subsequent purchasers. Lessee of Burgett v. Burgett,207.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Where one party to a writ of error is within the saving clause of the Statute, the case is saved as to all the parties. Wilkins Phillips. 464.

An action of debt on simple contract was not barred by the Statute previous to the act of 1824. Tupper v. Tupper, 615.

An agreement to submit a question of boundary to arbitration defeats the operation of the Statute. Lessee of Hunt v. Guilford, 802.

The Statute begins to rum from the time of the injury committed, and not from the time of the damage sustained or discovery of the injury. Kerns v. Schoonmaker, 814.

Where the Plaintiff in ejectment shows that the original grantee was within the exception of the Statute, proof that others deriving interest under the grantee are not within such exception, is unnecessary; if relied on to defeat the recovery it must come from the defendant. dem. Thompson et al v. Gibson et al 385.

STATUTE OF USES.

Doe ex.

Quere, whether the Statute of Uses was ever in force in Ohio. The Court equally divided in opinion. Doe ex. dem. Thompson et al. v Gibson et al. 385.

STEAMBOATS. SEE Insurance.

STEAM DOCTORS.

A Patent issued by the President of the U. States securing the exclusive right to manufacture and use certain medicine, does not authorise the administration of them, by an individual in the character of a practising physician, without conforming to the laws of the State where administered. Jordan v. the Overseers of Dayton, 800.

Lands in the Virginia Military District divided by county lines, where the owner resides on part, can only be listed for taxation in the county where the owner resides. If otherwise listed and sold for taxes, the sale is void. Lessee of Hughy v. Howell et al. 335. Advertisements of sales of land for taxes must be made in two newspapers, one at the seat of government, one in the county, or if none there, then one in most general circulation therein. Ib.

Upon a sale of land for taxes, an agreement among several that they will advance funds and one shall buy, 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 injunction may be allowed to stay a sale for taxes on city lots assessed by the council of Cincinnati. Burnet v. the Corporation of Cincinnati, 476.

A deed from the Collector of taxes, does not transfer the title, without proof that the land was listed, taxed and advertised, and that the person making the sale was legally authorised to sell. Lessee of Holl's heirs v. Hemphill's heirs, 551.

After a survey is recorded, the holder cannot destroy the tax lien of the State. Ib.

An appeal does not lie from the common Pleas on an application to redeem lands sold for taxes
Streel v. Francis, 573.

A certiorari is the proper remedy. Ib.

The authority of a person claiming to act as agent, for applicants to redeem land sold for taxes,
cannot be questioned on certiorari, after the recognition of such power by the common Pleas.
Masterson v. Beasly et al. 587.

The validity of the title of the applicant cannot be called in question on an application to re-
deem. Ib.

The applicant must show that he or those for whom he professes to act are in some way con-
nected with the title, as by deed, descent, contract or possession under claim of title, or an
equitable interest. Ib.

A bill in Chancery for a perpetual injunction against collecting a tax assessed in the ordinary
way, and unaccompanied by any circumstances of peculiar injury, cannot be sustained, even
if the law authorising the tax be unconstitutional. McCoy v. the Corporation of Chilli-
cothe, 609.

The Statutes imposing a tax upon Merchants are not unconstitutional. Raguet v. Wade, 739.

TENANTS IN COMMON.

A deed by a tenant in common or coparcenary, purporting to convey in severalty, is a good con-
veyance of the grantor's undivided part, within its boundaries. Lessee of White v. Sayre,

269.

A tenant in common or coparcenary, can convey a part of his undivided estate. Ib.
Tenants in common may make a joint demise in ejectment. Doe ex dem. Wilkinson v. Flem
ing, 370.

A devise to husband and wife and their heirs is a tenancy in common. Sergeant v. Steinberger
et al. 372.

Parties receiving separate allotments in the same tract of land, are not tenants in common so as
to claim partition of a surplus. Lockwood et al. v. Mills, 457.

TENANTS BY THE CURTESY.

A feme sole in contemplation of marriage, grants a term of seventy-five years of her real estate
to trustees, in trust for her own use during the contemplated coverture: The marriage takes
place, and she has issue, and dies, her husband living; he is entitled to the estate as tenant by
the curtesy. Lessee of Lowry v. Steele et al. 763.

TENDER.

A tender after suit brought before a justice, of the amount due, and the costs then accrued, is a
bar to the recovery of further costs. Hay v. Oosterout, 614.

TIME.

A day may be made material by averments. Hough v. Young, 216.

The time for the performance of a decree in chancery may be enlarged. Baird v. Sheppard,
354. SEE Chancery.

TOWNSHIP.

An individual can sustain an action against a township before a Justice of the Peace. Harding
v. Trustees of New-Haven Township, 547.

For township liabilities an action lies against the "trustees of the township" without naming
them. Ib.

TRANSCRIPT.

The appellant from the Judgment of a Justice is entitled to a transcript without paying the costs
of suit, and if the Justice refuse a transcript, he is liable to an action. Leffingwell v. Flint,

TRESPASS.

The plaintiff in trespass on real estate, where the damages laid in the declaration exceed one hun-
dred dollars, is entitled to full costs, without regard to the amount recovered. Norton v. Hart,
73.

A party in possession of land under a parol contract, may maintain trespass against the owner.
Wilber v. Paine, 118.

A verdict and judgment against one joint trespasser, cannot be plead in bar to a separate action
for the same trespass, against another joint trespasser. Wrightv Lathrop, 247.

Where, in an action of trespass against five, the plaintiff accepts a note from two, payable at a
future day, in satisfaction as to them, but not to operate as a satisfaction for the other defend-
ants, the cause of action is discharged as to all. Ellis v. Bitzer, 262.

Trespass cannot be supported without actual possession in the plaintiff at the time the trespass
was committed. Beggs v. Thompson, 266.

The purchaser at sheriff's sale cannot sustain trespass for the crops, where he does not obtain the
possession by ejectment. 1b.

Trespass and not case is the remedy where the defendant "so carelessly and negligently navigated
his steamboat on the Ohio River, that he run foul of, and struck the flat boat of the plaintiff by
means whereof it immediately sunk and was lost." Case, et al. v. Mark, 305.

Where lands are sold on proceedings in partition subsequently reversed, the purchaser who en-
tered under such sale is not liable in trespass, for acts done while the decree was in force, Dab-
ney v. Manning, et al. 594.

Where the proprietors of the town of Wooster, executed a bond "to the commissioners of Wayne
county, that thereafter might be appointed or elected, and their successors" conditioned to lay
down water pipes, through the lands of the proprietors, to carry water to the town and to se-
cure the use of such water to the inhabitants thereof, Held, That such bond could not operate
as a grant of the use of the land in which the pipes were laid; and that, in an action of tres-
pass by the grantee of the proprietors of the town, the defendant could not justify by showing
an order of the common council of Wooster authorizing him to enter upon the premises and re-
pair the pipes. Sloane v. McConahy, 761.

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

Where the defendant justifies the breaking of the plaintiff's close and carrying away stone, for
the construetion of the National Road, the plea must set forth the facts that constitute the ne-
cessity for such invasion of private right. Ib.

Trespass, quare clausum fregit, cannot be supported by the landlord for a wrong done by a
stranger, while the tenant has the actual possession. Miller v. Fulton, et. al. 849.

TRUST AND TRUSTEE.

Trust estates are not liable to judgments rendered against the trustee: thus land bona fide sold
but not conveyed, is not liable to a subsequent judgment against the vendor. Manley v.
Hunt, et. al. 122.

The law recognizes a tacit as well as an express trust. Starr v. Starr, et al. 146.
Where a deed of trnst conveys property to be held by the trustee and disposed of, as the gran-
tor shall direct, for the benefit of the issue of a contemplated marriage, the property thus
conveyed, enures to the benefit of such issue, though the grantor die without directing a
sale. Steele v. Lowry, et. al. 718.

Where a feme sole in contemplation of marriage, grants a term of 75 years of her real estate,
a trustee, in trust for her own use during the contemplated coverture, and the marriage takes
effect and she has issue and dies, leaving the husband; he is tenant by the curtesey in the
trust estate. Lessee of Lowry v. Steele, 763.

USE AND OCCUPATION.

In an action for use and occupation, the tenant having enjoyed the premises, cannot question
the title of the landlord. Moore v. Bearly 585.

Nil Habuit, cannot be plead where the landlord has been in possession. Ib.

Use and occupation, after a recovery in ejectment, will not lie, to recover rents and profits;
after the date of the demise in the declaration. Butler v. Cowles, 779. SEE Assumpsit.
USES. SEE Statute of Uses.

VALUATION. SEE Appraisement.

VARIANCE.

The plaintiff cannot support his action by proof contradicting the averments in his own declar
ation. Hoe v. Young, 216.

Where the defendants are named in the declaration as ada inistrators, evidence may be given
to charge them in their individual characters. Waldsmith v. Waldsmith, 293.
In an action for malicious prosecution the declaration contained two counts. One alleged the
commission of the offence on the- day of 1824; the other on or about the 24th of May
1824; the affidavit containing the charge and stating the offence to have been committed
on or about the 16th of May, 1821, is admissible and the variance is not fatal. Richards v.
Foulks, 474.

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, $19.

Where the original judgment was for 2500 dollars, and a sei. fa. to revive, recited a judgment
for 918 dollars, and a judgment of revivor was taken by default for the sum of 918 dollars,
the judgment of revivor is erroneous. Wolf v. Poundsford, 841.

VENDOR AND VENDEE.

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 len does not pay the purchaser of the land at Sheriff's sale, so
as to enable him to set it up against the dower estate of the widow of the original vendee
M'Arthur v. Porter, et. al. 44.

The assignment of a note given for the purchase money of real estate does not transfer the
equitable lien of the vendor, either at law or in equity. Jackman v. Hallock, et. al. 144.
Where the vendor covenants to make an indisputable title, he must make out a complete con
nected paper title. Courcier et. al. v. Graham, 150.

It is well settled, that when money is paid upon a parol contract for the sale of land, and the
vendor refuses or neglects to execute the contract, the money paid may be recovered back.
Buck v. Waddle, et. al. 163.

As between vendor and vendee, the vendor has a lien upon the lands sold, for the purchase
money, though personal security be given. Tiernan v. Beam, et. al. 406.

Such lien passes to the devisee of the vendor when the legal title remains in him. Ib.
SEE Chancery. Contract.

VERDICT.

The court may conform a verdict to the intention of a jury without consulting them. Hay v.
Oosterout, 614.

VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE.

SEE Fraud and Fraudulent Conveyance.

WARRANT. SEE Entry and Surrey.

WILLS.

A devisee to husband and wife creates a tenancy in common. Sergeant v. Steinberger et al.

372.

A devise of a tract of land "free and clear from any incumbrance except as hereinafter men-
tioned," with a limitation over, in case the devisee die without issue, followed with directions,
that in consideration of the devise, I. D. should pay at different periods to different persons;
held, that I. D. is only personally liable for the sums appointed to be paid in his life time, but
that the amount falling due after his death was a charge upen the land devised. Decker v.
Decker, 511,

Where there was a devise to the widow, of "one half of all the personal property," and a subsequent devise to the widow, of "one half the profits of the real estate for life," and a devise to a daughter after the death of the widow, of "the profits of all his stock in a certain company, for life;" and a further devise to the heirs of the daughter, of "all the stock aforesaid;” Held that the stock did not pass under the devise of "personal property." Young et ux. v. McIntire, 645.

The Statute of Wills in Ohio, is more comprehensive than that of HEN. VIII. Lenee of Smith al. v. Jones, 744.

Where the testator, at the time of making his will, was in possession of a lot of land, under a verbal contract of purchase, Held, that a devise of such let was valid, notwithstanding the testator acquired the legal title after the execution of the will; and that the acquisition of the legal title did not operate as a revocation of the will, but upon the death of the testator the legal title passed to the devisee and not to the heir at law. Ib.

The acquiescence of a female devisee in the construction of the will, does not conclude her. Bigalow et ux. v. Barr et al. 825. SEE Executors and Administrators.

WITNESS.

When the subscribing witness to a writing denies his signature, other witnesses may be called to prove its execution. Duckwall v. Weaver, 234.

Where there is other proof that a subscribing witness to a writing resides out of the jurisdiction of the Court, it is not necessary to take out a subpoena and have a return of not found. Clark v. Boyd, 250.

Where the subscribing witness resides out of the jurisdiction of the court, proof of his hand writing is prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument. Ib.

Declarations made by a witness previous to his examination, contrary to his statement when examined, are admissible to discredit his testimony. Lamb v. Stewart, 334.

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 authority from the defendant not served; in a Bill for contribution against those not served, the attorney is a competent witness. Cox v. Hill et al. 619.

Where a party puts a witness upon his voire dire as to his interest, he cannot afterwards except to him on the ground of interest, Lessee of Bisbee v. Hall, 627.

▲ negro is not an admissible witness against a quateroon. Gray v. the State of Ohio, 821.

Jenkins & Glover, Printers.

THE END.