566...... Indianapolis & Cin. R. R. Co. v. Martin v. Baker, 5 Blackf. 232......136 Rutherford, 29 Ind. 82............357 Masson v. Bovet, 1 Denio, 69........153 Indianapolis & Cin. R. R. Co. v. Masterton v. The Mayor of Brook McClure, 26 Ind. 370.......364, 367 lyn, 7 Hill, 61............... 59 Indianapolis. &c., R. R. Co. v. MC- Mathew v. Ollerton, Comb. 218....534 Kinney, 24 Ind. 283...............479 Mathews v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 31... 45 Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. Sum- Matlock v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130........488 mers, 28 Ind. 521... ...... ...449 Mayor of Jeffersonville v. Weems, 5 Ind. 547..... .522 J Mayor v. Pentz, 24 Wend. 667......165 Jackson v. The State, 19 Ind. 312..209 McDonald v. Beach, 2 Blackf. 55...117 McDaniel's Case, Foster C. C. 127..432 Jeffersonville R. R. Co. v. Lanham, 27 Ind. 171. McElfatrick v. Coffroth, 29 Ind. 37..301 ..165 Jeffries v. Maccown, 30 Ind. 226...334 McGatrick v. Wason, 4 Ohio St. Jenkins v. McConico, 26 Ala. 213..127 McPherson v. Leathers, 29 Ind. 65..506 .........418 Johnson v. The N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 33 N. Y. 610..................376 McSheely v. Bently, 31 Ind. 235...303 Jones v. Hawkins, 17 Ind. 550...... 235 Merritt v. Brinkerhoff, 17 Johns. Jones v. Theiss, 30 Ind. 311..........161 Merritt v. Cobb, 17 Ind. 314.........488 306...... .........405 Jones v. Van Patten, 3 Ind. 107... 63 M'Gee v. Barber, 14 Pick. 212...... 29 Joy v. Hopkins, 5 Denio, 84.........165 Mill River Man'fg Co. v. Smith, 34 Conn. 462.. .408 Molihan v. The State, 30 Ind. 266..101, Keefer v. The State, 4 Ind. 246.....442 285 Keene v. Meade, 3 Pet. 1............ 28 Moore v. Meacham, 10 N. Y. 207...355 Kellenberger v. Foresman, 13 Ind. Morgan v. The State, 31 Ind. 193 475....... .530 425, 426 Kern v. Hazlerigg, 11 Ind. 443.... 4 Morris v. The State, 31 Ind. 189...418 Klingensmith v. Reed, 31 Ind. Morrison v. Lovejoy, 6 Minn. 319.. 61 389... 91 Myers v. Dodd, 9 Ind. 290........ .498 Myers v. The State, 1 Conn. 502...418 L N Lafayette & Ind'polis R. R. Co. v. Huffman, 28 Ind. 287.............356 Lagow v. Badollet, 1 Blackf. 416... North Penn. R. R. Co. v. Heleman, Nave v. King, 27 Ind. 356............198 Lane v. Bryant, 9 Gray, 245.........355 49 Penn. St. 60....................359 Langdon v. Applegate, 5 Ind. 327 141, 468 O Laythoarp v. Bryant, 2 Bing. N. O. 735.. 96 Lee v. Kimball, 45 Me. 172.........242 Oiler v. Bodkey, 17 Ind. 600........303 Lewis v. Shearman, 28 Ind. 427...516 Oliver v. Keightley, 24 Ind. 514...399 Lisbon v. Clark, 18°N. H. 234......396 O'Reiley v. The Kankakee, &c., Little v. Smith, 4 Scam. 400.........199 Co., 32 Ind. 169... Logan v. Austin, 1 Stew. 476.......534 P Logan v. Mathews, 6 Penn. St. 417.... ...........418 Louisville & N. A. R. R. Co. v. The Paine v. The Lake Erie, &c., R. R. ...380 State, ex rel. McCarty, 25 Ind. Co., 31 Ind. 283... 177....... Palmer v. Henderson, 20 Ind. 297..547 ...110 Luby v, The Hudson River R. R. Patten v. Marden, 14 Wis. 473......405 Čo., 17 N. Y. 131..................354 Pennington v. Clifton, 11 Ind. 162..458 Pelts v. The State, 3 Blackf. 28.....441 Lynch' v. Morse, 97 Mass. 458.......106 Penn. R. R. Co. v. Henderson, 43 Penn. St. 449....... ........362 People v. Allen, 6 Wend. 486......197 Mandlove v. Lewis, 9 Ind. 194......456 People v. Carmichael, 5 Mich. 10...169 Markle v. The State, 3 Ind. 535....159 People v. Conger, 1 Wheeler C. C. B 448... .........159 ....331 People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229.....169 | State, ex rel. Vincennes T'p, v. Philadelphia, &c., R. R. Co. v. Grammer, 29 Ind. 530..... ....264 Spearen, 47 Penn. St. 300..........359 State of Rhode Island v. State of Philbrick v. Foster, 4 Ind. 442......533 Mass., 12 Pet. 657................495 Pierce v. Goldsberry, 31 Ind. 52... 45 Story v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., Plough v. Reeves, 33 Ind. 181......183 6 N. Y. 85........... 59 Prigg v. Commonw. of Penn., 16 Stout v. Wren, 1 Hawks. 420.......534 Pet. 539...... .473 Stretch v. Schenck, 23 Ind. 77...... 82 Strider v. King, 3 Cranch C. C. 67.. 3 Stubley v. London, &c., R. W. Co., ...363 Raymond v. Pritchard, 24 Ind. Sury v. Pigot, Popham, 166.........406 318......... ..516 Swinney v. Nave, 22 Ind. 178......488 Regina v. Norton, 8 C. & P. 196... 485 Reiman v. Shepard, 27 Ind. 288...113 T Rex v. Clarke, 2 Stark. 241.........428 Rex v. Fry, Russ. & Ryan, 481......160 Tatlock v. Harris, 3 T. R. 174......175 Rev v. Loxdale, 1 Burr. 445.........199 Telfer v. The Northern R. R. Co., Rex v. Wharton, Holt, 499..........405 30 N. J. 188.... ..357 Reynolds v. Stevenson, 4 Ind. 619..203 Thames Manuf'g Co. v. Lathrop, 7 Richardson v. Spencer, 6 Ohio, 13.504 Conn. 550....... ...199 Ricket v. Stanley, 6 Blackf. 169...489 Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119.447 Rinker v. Sharp, 5 Blackf. 185......154 Toledo & Wabash R. W. Co. v. Rogers v. Evans, 3 Ind. 574......... 458 Goddard, 25 Ind. 185.......356, 367 Roseberry v. Huff, 27 Ind. 12.......389 Trustees Hopkins Acad. v. DickinRykers Ridge Turnpike Co. v. son, 9 Cush. 544..................... 405 Scott, 32 Ind. 37... ....... .318 | Trustees Wabash & Erie Canal v. Brett, 25 Ind. 409..... ........530 s Tucker v. Welsh, 17 Mass. 160.....428 Tull v. David, 27 Ind. 377...........490 Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Turner v. The Thorntown, &c., Gr. Ch. 620....... ..131 Road Co., 33 Ind. 317.............329 Schlict v. The State, 31 Ind. 246...208 Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mason, 397..405 Seaton v. The Second Municipality, 3 La. Ann. 44........................ 59 U ..........153 ........495 V 565..... ......375 Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y. 379... 129 Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y. 9.165 Smith v. Calloway, 7 Blackf. 86...459 Vanness v. Bradley, 29 Ind. 388...301 Smith v. Jeffries, 25 Ind. 376.......490 Voglesong v. The State, 9 Ind. 112.216 Smith v. Smith, 8 Blackf. 208...... 96 Snelson y. The State, 16 Ind. 29... 494 W Sparks v. Clapper, 30 Ind. 204...... 91 State v. Conger, 14 Ind. 396.........203 Waltz v. Borroway, 25 Ind. 380.... 28 State v. Hall, 7 Blackf. 25............495 Ward v. Colyhan, 30 Ind. 395...... 179 State v. Magee, 11 Ind. 154... .485 Watkins, ex parte, 3 Pet. 193.......495 State v. Roe, 12 Vt. 93................ 428 Webb v. Thompson, 23 Ind. 428... 123 State v. Slocum, 8 Blackf. 315......304 Welborn v. Swain, 22 Ind. 194.....307 State v. Smith, 8 Blackf. 489........485 Wert v. The Crawfordsville, &c., State v. Stintson, 4 Zab. 1...........159 Turnpike Co., 19 Ind. 242 ........103 State v. Vierling, 33 Ind. 99.........269 West v. The Bullskin, &c., Co., 19 State, ex rel. Benton, v. The Mayor, Ind. 458.... 52 &c., of Laporte, 28 Ind. 248..526, 528 West v. The Bullskin, &c., Co., 32 State, ex rel. Cornwell, v. Allen, 21 Ind. 138.... 331 Ind. 516...... ....391 / Wetzler v. The State, 18 Ind. 416.203 Weyer v. Thornburgh, 15 Ind. 124.117 | Williams v. The Franklin T'p AcWheeler v. Robb, 1 Blackf. 330.... 489 ademical Ass'n, 26 Ind. 310....104 Whitcomb v. Gilman, 35 Vt. 297...418 Womack v. McQuarry, 28 Ind. 103.530 Whitehead v. Anderson, 9 M. & W. Work, v. Brayton, 5 Ind. 396....... 3 518............... ... 242 Wright v. Harris, 29 Ind. 438......101 Whitlock v. West, 26 Conn. 406...396 Whitney v. Ragsdale, 33 Ind. 107 Y 112, 114 Wilcox v. The Rome, &c, R. R. Co. 39 N. Y. 358..... .361 Yeates v. Reed, 4 Blackf. 463.......180 Gavin & Hord's Statutes of Indiana are cited as 1, 2 G. & H. For previous decisions of the Supreme Court of this State overruled, criticised, &c., see INDEX, tit. CASES OVERRULED, &c. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, AT INDIANAPOLIS, MAY TERM, 1870, IN THE FIFTY-FOURTH YEAR OF THE STATE. JOHNS V. SEWELL. 33 1 145 337 VENDOR AND PURCHASER.—Lien.- Volunteer.-Notice.-A. held certain real estate by title-bond from B., who held the legal title, A. having fully paid. him the purchase-money. C. purchased said real estate from A. and gave his promissory note to A. for a portion of the purchase-money, and A. directed B. to convey to C.; but by C.'s procurement, B., without the knowleldge or consent of A., conveyed to C.'s wife, who was a volunteer. Afterwards D. purchased the property from C. and took a conveyance executed. by C. and wife, with notice that C. owed the unpaid purcase-money for which he had given said note. Held, in a suit by the assignee of said note to enforce a vendor's lien upon said land in the possession of D., that the complaint was not insufficient for not alleging that D. had notice that C.'s wife was a volunteer. Held, also, that A. had an equitable lien on the land for the unpaid purchase money due him, which lien passed to the assignee of said note. APPEAL from the Fountain Circuit Court. FRAZER, J.-It is assigned for error that a demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and this presents the principal question in the case. The facts averred were, that Oliver P. West purchased certain real estate from Donaldson, and gave the latter his promissory note for a portion of the pur VOL. XXXIII.-1 |
0 Críticas As críticas não são validadas, mas a Google verifica a existência de conteúdo falso e remove-o quando é identificado Escrever crítica |