After writ of error sued, matter of form cannot be amended in the Supreme Court. Hanley, vs. Levin, 142.

If the Court err, in stating an abstract proposition, not applicable to the cause, it is no ground to reverse a judgment or grant a new trial. Reed, vs. McGrew, 233.

Where there are several counts in a declaration on a contract, one of which is bad, and entire damages are given, judgment for the plaintif is erroneous. Nelson, vs. Ford, 300.

ESTOPPEL.

Deed not attested by two witnesses, and containing no covenant of warranty, does not work an estoppel. Patterson's Lessee, vs. Pease, et al., 119. Conveyance made, by a defective deed, before a patent issues-the grantee conveys by deed duly executed, with warranty, and puts his grantee in possession-when the patent issues it inures to the latter grantee, by way of estoppel. Douglas, vs. Scott, 122.

EVIDENCE.

It is competent to receive the Teller of a Bank to prove the hand-writing of the President and Cashier, although he never saw them write. Hess, vs. Õhio, 1. In trial upon an indictment, for having counterfeit Bank notes in possession, it is admissible to prove that other counterfeits were found secreted in defendant's house and in possession of his wife. Ib.

Bank note offered in evidence, upon an indictment charging that it was subscribed H. Biddle, whether the actual signature was N. Biddle or H. Biddle, is a question of fact, that cannot be investigated in a writ of error, unless the note is attached to the record. Ib.

Whether a constable's bond was duly made and accepted may be proved by parol. Westerhaven, vs. Clive, 82.

Evidence admissible, but admitted for an erroneous reason, does not vitiate a verdict. Ibid.

A defendant cannot make it a ground of exception that the plaintif gave evidence of facts he was not bound to prove. Reynolds, et al., vs. Rogers' Ex'rs,

104.

A collector of taxes, in making defence, need not prove any thing more than that he acted and was reputed to be a collector. Eldred, vs. Sexton, 133. After an attempt to prove the truth of a plea of justification in slander, evidence of plaintif's general bad character may be given, but not in any particular. Dewit, vs. Greenfield, 140.

Where words are spoken after a term commences, and suit subsequently brought, declaration as of the term, the writ is evidence of the time the suit was actually commenced. Ib.

Trust might be created in real estate by parol, and proved by parol, before the statute of frauds of 1810. Fleming, et al., vs. Donahoe, et al., 154. Parol proof admissible to prove the opening and using a public road, though not laid exactly on the course described in the survey. Arnold, vs. Flattery, 165.

On an issue out of chancery to try the validity of a will, defendant's answer is not to be read as evidence. Green, vs. Green, 170.

Two persons separately indicted for the same arson, one tried and convicted, the record is not evidence on the trial of the other. Kazer, vs. the State,

172.

Member of a religious corporation having no separate interest, is admissible as
a witness where the corporation is a party. Methodist Church, vs. Wood,

174.

Answer to a bill of discovery introducing new matter, not responsive, cannot be
read. Methodist Church, vs. Wood, 174.

Until act of March, 1831, depositions taken before the Mayor of one of the
cities in the District of Columbia not admissible. Gibson, et al., vs. Mc-
Arthur, et al., 203.

Plaintif is competent to prove book accounts continuously and fairly kept, with-
in eighteen months of closing the account. James, vs. Richmond and
Bostwick, 209.

Deed from county Auditor for lands sold for taxes, not evidence, unless sus-
tained by transcripts of the proceedings on the Auditor's books. Carlisle's
Lessee, vs. Longworth, 229.

Confessions of an alledged horse thief, that he had stolen the horse, made in
defendant's presence, cannot be given in evidence, in support of an indict-
ment for concealing a horse thief, to prove that the horse was stolen. Mor-
rison, vs. the State, 275.

Parol evidence not admissible to prove an order of Court for the administrator
to sell a decedent's lands. Newcombe's Lessee, vs. Smith, 282.

EXECUTION.

Where a levy upon an execution, made before the act of 1822, is not set aside
under that act, the judgment lien subsists against a purchaser from the debtor.
Execution levied upon lands after defendant's 'death, sale void. Lessee of
Cartney, vs. Reed, 137.

Execution on judgments, issued after expiration of a year and a day, that
first issued and levied has preference. Sellers' Lessee, vs. Corwin, et al.,

249.

Purchaser on execution entitled to benefit of occupying claimant law. Sellers'
Lessee, vs. Corwin, et al., 249.

Execution once sued on judgment in ejectment, and executed-no second
execution can be sued on the same judgment. Hinton, vs. McNeil, et al.

325.

Defect in description of property levied on execution, may be supplied by parol
proof. Douglas, vs. M'Coy, 334.

Several executions levied upon the same land, a sale upon each is unneces-
sary. The proceeds made on one should be distributed. Ibid.

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.

When a creditor is appointed administrator to his debtor, and dies having re-
ceived no assets, the debt is not extinguished, nor is there a presumption of
payment. Hall, vs. Pratt, et al., 43.

Where intestate's estate is solvent including the realty, it is a devastavit in the
administrator, to pay out all the personal estate to one creditor, and take no
measures to sell the realty. Abbott, vs. Cole, et al., 48.

Where a removed administrator has settled with the Court, and the balance in
his hands is ascertained, suit may be brought direct against the sureties.
Treasurer of Franklin county, vs. McElvain, et al., 126.

Form of declaration and mode of proceeding against the securities of an ad-
ministrator, as settled in Steward and Chaplain, vs. Treasurer of Cham-
paign county, recognized and affirmed. Treasurer of Montgomery county,
vs. Kemps, 144.

The order for the sale of an intestate's real estate, by his administrator, under
the law of 1813, was required to be made after appraisement. Newcomb's
Lessee, vs. Smith, 282.

Quere, if administrator can release equity of redemption in his intestate, ex-
cept under the direction of a Court of equity. Bank U. S., vs. Piatts, 346.
Administrator de bonis non, must be appointed before a suit in chancery can
proceed, that affects the intestate's estate, though the estate has apparently
been settled, and there is nothing remaining to be disposed of. Piatt, vs.
Heirs of St. Clair, 356.

Administrator's power to sell intestate's real estate, is put an end to, by the
repeal of the statute, under which the order was made, before the execution
of the power. Ludlow's Lessee, vs. Wade, 315.

EXECUTOR, de son tort.

No person can be charged as an executor in his own wrong, under the laws of
Ohio. Dixon, vs. Cassell, 341.

FEMMES COVERT.

A femme covert can make a will under the statute of Ohio.
Little, 38.

FORFEITURE.

Tenant suffers land to be sold for taxes, he forfeits his estate.
Lessee, vs. Robbins, 13.

McMillan's

Cannot save the estate by depositing redemption money.
Law imposing the forfeiture is constitutional.

Ibid.

Ibid.

A conveyance on condition that the grantee shall keep a saw and grist mill, ‘in
operation on the premises, is a valid one; if the grantee fails to perform the
condition, he forfeits the estate. Sperry's Lessee, vs. Pond, et al., 241.

FORGERY.

An indictment for forgery must set out the instrument alledged to be forged.
McMillen, vs. The State of Ohio, 163.

FRAUD.

Voluntary conveyance, by a father to his children, of the principal part of his
estate, when liable, upon a contract, for damages, held fraudulent and set
aside in favor of the party recovering on that contract. Brice, vs. My-
ers, et al., 71.

Stockholder in an incorporated Bank, may maintain a bill in chancery against
the company,
the directors, stockholders and other individuals, alledging
fraudulent mismanagement. Taylor, vs. Miami Ex. Co., et al., 99.
Before the statute of frauds of 1810, trust might be created in real estate by
parol, and established by parol evidence. Fleming, et al., vs. Donahoe,
et al., 154.

Parol agreement to transfer a certificate of an entry for land not within the
statute of frauds. Reed, vs. McGrew, 233.

Where an aged person of weak mind, arrested upon a criminal charge and in
prison, in order to obtain bail, conveys an estate worth 2500 dollars, reserv-
ing an annuity of $100 per annum during his life, the transaction does not
present a prima facie case of fraud. Knobb, vs. Lindsays, 297.

FREIGHTER.

Quere, as to the effect of usage, in freighting on the Ohio river, upon the con-
tract of affreightment. Lawrence, vs. McGregor, et al., 189.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Husband that abuses his wife, cannot maintain an action against her father,
who receives and protects her. Rabe, vs. Hanna, 339.

INDICTMENT.

Indictment for counterfeiting Bank notes need not set out the indorsement on
the back. Hess, vs. Ohio, 1.

Indictment against two, one tried and convicted. Not held error, where it can
be inferred from the record, an order for a separate trial was made, though
such order is not set out.

Ib.

Two may be joined in an indictment for having counterfeit notes in possession.
Ib.

Indictment for having counterfeit Bank notes in possession, and for making sale
of them, need not charge that the sale was for a consideration, or to the in-
jury of any one.
Ib.

Upon an indictment of a single count, for assault with intent to kill, party may
be convicted of assault and battery, or of assault alone. Stewart, vs. Ohio,

145.

In an indictment for forgery, it is necessary specifically to describe that which
is charged to be forged, and to set it out in the indictment. McMillen, vs.
Ohio, 163.

Prisoner indicted stands mute.-The Court cannot assume the reason to be, that
he is indicted for the same offence, in the Supreme Court, and for that rea-
son refuse to proceed. An inquiry into the cause of his standing mute ought
to have been made. Turner's case, 347.

INFANT.

Infant femme covert makes a deed. She may disaffirm it at any time before
the statute of limitations would bar a recovery in ejectment. Drake's Les-
see, vs. Ramsey, et al., 152.

INJUNCTION.

An injunction is a proper proceeding to stay a sale on land upon execution,
where no title could pass, but the complainant's title might be clouded.
Norton, vs. Beaver, et al., 111.

Injunction not sustained, on complaint of a supervisor of a public road, to en-
join obstructions upon it. Putnam, vs. Valentine, et al., 117.

INSOLVENT.

An insolvent debtor makes an assignment, in trust, for the benefit of preferred
creditors, with a clause that those who do not stipulate within a time speci-
fied, to release the debtor his whole debt for what he may receive under the
assignment. Held void as to the creditors that do not stipulate to release.
Atkinson, et al., vs. Jordan, et al., 178.

INSURANCE.

Insurance on a steam boat, her machinery, &c., covers the cost of repairing the
articles insured upon, and the expense of towing her to the nearest place of
repair; but not the wages and subsistence of hands during the delay. Perry,
vs. Ohio Ins. Co., 186.

Insurer does not insure against loss resulting from the negligence of the assured,
or those employed by him. Lodwicks, et al., vs. Ohio Ins. Co. 273.
Master and Marines are agents of the assured. So are navigators of flat boats
on the Ohio river. Ib.

Sixth rule of Ohio Ins. Co. respecting double insurance, applies to a subse-
quent as well as to a previous insurance on the same risks. Harris, vs.
Ohio Ins. Co., 295.

INTEREST.

Rule for calculating interest on money, in a particular state of accounts.
ami Ex. Co. vs. Bank U. S., 158.

In torts upon chattels, interest may be given by way of damages.
Zanes. C. Co., 257.

JOINT CONTRACTS.

Mi-

Hoggs, vs.

One of several joint contractors sued, without notice of the others in the pro-
cess or declaration, exception must be taken by plea in abatement, not by
demurrer. McArthur, vs. Ladd, 328.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

Loose and vague proceedings of the Courts in the first stages of the Territorial
Government, to be sustained if practicable, consistent with principle. Lud--
low's Lessee, vs. Wade, 315.

JUDGMENT.

Judgment confessed, upon process issued during the term, and levied within
ten days, postponed to a judgment of the same term, at a subsequent day,
on process pending at the commencement of the term, though not levied
within ten days. Riddle, vs. Bryan, et al., 27.

Ib.

Judgments and levies, not affected by the statute of 1822, where the execution
was levied within one year, and the levy continued.
Judgment not arrested for departure in pleading after issue joined, and verdict,
where it sufficiently appears for whom judgment should be rendered. Jor-
dan, et al., vs. L. and J. James, 49.

Judgment on demurrer to a plea that the plea is bad, concludes the party,
though on writ of inquiry the jury find the same facts in a special verdict.
Bush, et al., vs. Critchfield, et al., 63.