See DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS,
in its corporate capacity. Per NEL-
SON, Ch. J. Wood v. Rice,
PRACTICE, 14, 17 to 19, 30, 32, 33, 6. Accordingly, where an action was
COURT OF A JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE.
1. Where a justice of the peace, after a
jury had pronounced their verdict, ren-
dered judgment immediately and noted
it in his minutes of the trial, but omit-
ted to enter it upon his docket until
two or three days after; held, that
the omission was not cause for reversal
on certiorari. Hall and others v.
Tuttle,
38
2. The case of Watson v. Davis, (19
Wend. 371,) commented on and ex-
plained.
id
3. Though it appear on a trial in a jus-
tice's court from the plaintiff's own
showing that the title to lands is in
question, and the justice improperly
refuse to dismiss the cause, his judg
ment will not be void for want of ju-
risdiction, but only voidable for error.
Per COWEN, J. Koon v. Mazuzan,
4. The justice may properly proceed and
render judgment, notwithstanding evi-
dence of title to lands be given by the
plaintiff, if the defendant do not ex-
pressly dispute such title, nor move to
have the cause dismissed. Id; Adams
v. Beach and Start,
271
5. The provision in the revised statutes
that "no action to recover a penalty
given to a town shall be brought be-
fore any justice of the peace of the
town for the benefit of which the ac-
tion is prosecuted," (1 R. S. 357,
§ 5,) applies only to cases where the
penalty is given directly to the town
brought before a justice of the peace
in the name of the overseers of the
poor to recover the penalty given by 1
R. S. 680, § 15, for selling spirituous
liquors without license; held, that
though the penalty when recovered
was to be applied to the use of the
poor of the town of E., and the justice
resided there, he had jurisdiction. id
20. The case of Wickware v. Bryan, (11 See EVIDENCE, 8, 9, 11.
Wend. 585,) commented on, and the
reporter's abstract corrected.
21. A summons issued by a justice stat-
ing a cause of action exceeding in
FRAUDULENT SALE OR ASSIGNMENT.
COURT OF A NEIGHBORING
STATE.
amount the jurisdiction of the court, is See EXECUTORS AND
a nullity, and lays the defendant under
no obligation to appear.
Yager v. Hannah,
22. A summons was issued by "The
justices' court in the city of Hudson"
requiring the defendant to appear and
See BANKRUPT AND BANKRUPT LAW, 8.
PRACTICE IN THE COURT OF ERRORS.
lowed the business of butchering sheep,
engaged one G. to take some of the
mutton which might be on hand dur-
ing a certain period, and sell it; but
in consequence of a report that the
plaintiff had purchased the defendant's
diseased sheep, G. refused to perform
his contract. Held, that the defend.
ant was not liable for any damages re-
sulting to the plaintiff from G.'s refusal
to perform.
id
7. So as to damages sustained by the
plaintiff in consequence of his custom-
ers refusing to deal with him because
of the report that he had purchased
the sheep in question.
8. A bank, having received from the
plaintiff a note for collection, employ-
ed a notary to attend to the business,
who afterward returned the note to
the bank with a certificate of protest
and of notice sent to the endorser;
whereupon a suit was commenced
against the endorser by the plaintiff,
in which the former proved that the
notice sent was defective, and the
plaintiff failed to recover. He then
See BANKRUPT AND Bankrupt Law.
FRAUD.
FRAUDULENT SALE OR ASSIGNMENT.
NON-IMPRISONMENT ACT.
OFFICE AND OFFICER, 2.
REDEMPTION OF LANDS.
DEBTORS, ABSCONDING, CON.
CEALED AND NON-RESIDENT.
See COSTS, 14 to 19.
See EVIDENCE, 5 to 7, 12, 13.
See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 16.
INFANT.
1. Land may be dedicated to the public
for pious and charitable purposes, as
well as for ways, commons, &c. Per
BEARDSLEY, J. Hunter v. The Trus
tees of Sandy Hill,
brought assumpsit against the bank
for a breach of the implied undertaking
to give due notice; alleging, among
other things, that the note was value
less without the responsibility of the
endorser. Held, that the bank was
not liable for the costs and expenses
incurred in prosecuting the endorser,
but only for the amount of the note
with interest. Downer v. The Madi- || 2. A dedication of land to the inhabit.
son County Bank,
See BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSO-
RY NOTES, 7.
GUARANTY, 4, 5.
See PLEADING, 6, 8, 28, 29.
ants of a town for a burying ground is
valid, and precludes the owner from
exercising his former rights over it. id
2. Where a deed of lands was given by
a husband and wife in 1760, to a pur-
chaser in good faith and for a valua-
ble consideration, the wife being then
seised of the fee in her own right, and
it appeared that the purchaser was in
possession at the time of the passage
of the act of February 16th, 1771, en-
titled "An act to confirm certain an-
cient conveyances," &c.: Held, that
the deed was valid and operative as
against those claiming under the wife,
though she had never acknowledged
it in any form.
3. The deed in this case, after describ-
ing the husband and wife as parties
of the first part, stated that he, by and
with the voluntary consent of his wife,
for and in consideration of the sum of
&c. to him in hand paid, granted
and conveyed the premises to V., his
heirs &c., and also all the estate of
them, the said husband and wife, in
every part or parcel thereof, to have
and to hold the same with the appur-
tenances, to the said V., his heirs and
assigns forever. Then followed a
clause to this effect: "And the said
J., [the husband,] and his said wife,
for themselves, their heirs &c., do
grant and grant to and with him, the
said V., his heirs and assigns, that he
may at all times, and from time to
time forever hereafter, peaceably and
quietly have, hold, possess and enjoy
the premises &c., without any let, suit,
trouble, denial or interruption of them,
the said J. and his wife, or any oth-
er person or persons claiming by, from
or under them or either of them."
Held, that the deed, though informal,
sufficiently indicated an intent to con-
vey the estate in fee of the wife, as
well as the life estate of the husband.
4. A deed described the premises intend-
ed to be conveyed as follows: "All
that certain tract or parcel of land sit-
uate in township number eleven in the
third range of townships, county of
Ontario and state of New-York, it be-
ing one hundred and sixty acres of
land, in lot number fourteen, with all
the hereditaments and appurtenances
thereunto belonging." Held, that
though lot number fourteen contained
one hundred and eighty-five acres, the
whole passed under the deed. Hatha-
way v. Power,
453
|