« AnteriorContinuar »
seal of the Court, may be proven by parol testimony to be a true
Porter v. Cox, 494.
1. A mortgager whose mortgage has been foreclosed, has a right of re-
demption under the act of February 17, 1842, and may remain in
Jennison v. Foltz, 490.
1. Where a rule of decision relative to the remedy is changed by stat-
ute, the new rule will be applicable to all cases subsequently tried,
Ballard v. Ridgly & Billon, 27.
Inghram v. Dooley et al. 28.
note arising from a breach of warranty or otherwise, passed after the
Griffey v. Payne, 68.
Davidson v. Wheeler, 238.
Meigs v. Parker, 378.
See JUDGMENT, 4,
See Costs, 5; JURISDICTION, 4.
1. Where there is a plea to the jurisdiction of a justice sustained, the
Van v. Manning, 491.
3. The writ of right does not lie to recover the possession of a claim
Doolittle v. Harrington, 226.
1. A riot cannot be justified to remove a trespasser, even if the rioters
Scott et al. v. United States, 142.
contrary to the organic law. Chalfont v. United States, 214.
1. A service on a defendant on a petition under the mechanics' lien
law, by posting a copy of the summons on the property to which the
Colcord & Sprague v. Funk, 178.
return to a summons; and if it was a service by copy, the return
Romaine v. Commissioners Muscatine County, 357.
Wilford v. Miller, 405.
attested copy," does not show on whom it was served, and is defec-
Longacre v. Simpson, 495.
See CONSIDERATION, 9; JURISDICTION, 7.
1. The sheriff is the proper officer to receive and execute process in all
cases, unless there is an affidavit of partiality, prejudice, consanguin-
ity, or interest existing in him or his deputy. Chord v. M'Coy, 311.
See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 4; EVIDENCE, 2; RECORD, 4; JUDGMENT, 1.
See PLEADING; 4.
See CONSIDERATION, 1.
1. To call another "thieving" is actionable. Pierson v. Stoertz, 136.
imprisonment; consequently, to call a woman a "whore” is action-
Cox and wife v. Bunker and wife, 269.
1. Wbere a slave goes, with the consent of his master, to become a per-
In the matter of Ralph, &c. 1.
prohibits slavery north of 36 degrees, 40 minutes, was not intended
come a permanent resident here, cannot afterwards exercise any acts
1. It is not necessary to set out the stamps or devices on bills as part
of the description in the declaration, or in the copy appended ; and
Knight v. For, 305.
See Equity, 20, 23.
1. A statute may take effect prior to its promulgation.
Temple v. Hays & Hendershott, 9.
Harlan & Duncan v. Sigler, 39.
a penal statute, grown obsolete by long disuse; especially when the
Hill v. Smith et al. 70.
See REMEDY, 1, 2, 3; LIMITATIONS, 1, 2; PRACTICE, 4.
defendant with a copy of the summons, was intended for his own
See DEFAULT, 2; SERVICE, 1, 2, 3, 4.
See EQUITY, 20.
1. The time fixed for performance is deemed the essence of the con-
tract; and if the seller is not ready and able to perform on the day,
Benedict v. Weston, 490.
See FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER, 1 ; EQUITY, 18; PLEADING, 11,
12; HALF-BREED, 3.
See HALF-BREED, 1, 2.
1. The action of trespass quare clausum fregit being local, must be in-
Switzer v. Goudy, 248.
evidence to prove that the plaintiff had originally taken possession
of the house by disseizin and trespass on the defendant, and that he
Donald v. Lightfoot et al. 450.
land, occupied as a claim, unless the evidence goes to show that such
Jones v. Donahoo, 493.
12; CLAIM, 5; CONSTABLE, 1.
1. A fund arising from the sale of lands pre-empted for seats of justice,
is a trust fund to be specially applied to the purpose contemplated
Davis & Whicher v. Commissioners of Muscatine, 161.
1. In debt on judgment, where the declaration described the judgment
to be for $834.41, damages and costs, and the record produced in evi-
Hight v. White, 45.
stance, operate beneficially to the plaintiff in error, this will not cure
it is only available on special demurrer. Phillips v. Runnels, 391.
1. It is no grounds of error that the venue in the declaration is laid in
Holmes v. Wright, 100.
Davidson v. Whetler, 238.
regularity, and conclusive, unless something to the contrary be
M'Cauley v. United States, 486.