페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

DECIDED IN THE

Supreme Court of Ohio

UPON THE CIRCUIT

AND

AT THE SPECIAL SESSIONS IN COLUMBUS

DECEMBER, 1829 AND JANUARY 1831

REPORTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ACT OF ASSEMBLY

By CHARLES HAMMOND

ATTORNEY AT LAW

HARVARD LAV LIBRARY

VOLUME IV

KEO
lir

CINCINNATI
ROBERT CLARKE & CO

1972

1881-9-9 TABLE OF CASES.

.........

........... 433

...........

R.

[ocr errors]

K.

Tom v. Desha and others........... 369
Kirns v. Schoonmaker ............. 331 Town of Marietta v. Fearing...... 427

W.

L

Lessee of Harmers v. Gwynn..... 439 Watkinson v. Root.........

Lewis y. Ohio...........

385 Wolf v. Poundsford........

373

397

CASES

DECIDED BY THE

Supreme Court of Ohio,

BEFORE ALL THE JUDGES,

AT A SPECIAL SESSION HOLDEN AT COLUMBUS, DEC., 1829.

LESSEE OF LUDLOW'S HEIRS V. CULBERTSON PARK.

When a case is reserved on the circuit, the facts material to its decision should

be drawn up in writing, approved by the court, filed among the papers,

and sent with them to the court in bank. An order of court authorizing administrators to sell the real estate of their

intestato, made subsequent to the sale, can not be given in evidence to

sustain such sale. Where, at the trial, evidence offered is rightly rejected, but an incorrect reason

assigned for such rejection by the court, it is no ground for a new trial. An order of court authorizing administrators to sell intestates' real estate,

excepting that of a specified character, can not be given in evidence to

sustain a sale of any of the lands excepted from its operation by its terms. Io a motion for a new trial, upon account of newly discovered evidence, the

evidence must be disclosed, and the motion granted or refused, according as the court may suppose such evidence affects the justice of the case.

THIS was an ejectment, tried before the Supreme Court, in Hamilton county, in which a verdict was founded for the plaintiff, and & motion was made by the defendant for a new trial, which motion VOL. IV-1

1

« 이전계속 »