Volume 11 — Ohio State Reports

This is an information in the nature of a quo warranto, to ascertain by what authority the defendants exercise banking powers.

This is a bill i-n chancery, from the county of Fairfield. The bill is.filed -'by the assignee of a note, not negotiable, against the assignor.and maker,-setting up, in avoidance of the right of set-off by the maker, a promise to pay, made by the maker to the assignee, after notice of the assignment. The bill charges that on January 7, 1839, Paul made this note to Gabriel Carpenter, for $1,500.

This is an alternative mandamus from the county of Hamilton. At the April term of said court, 1840, by order of court, an alternative mandamus was issued, commanding the defendants to pay over to the “Roman Catholic Church of Delhi township ” an equal dividend of the rents of section No. 29, in said township, due for the years 1837, ’38, ’39, or to appear before the court forthwith, and show cause why the same should not be paid over.

This is a bill of review from the county of Hamilton. The present defendants were the original plaintiffs, and were the heirs of Elizabeth Merritt. The original bill was brought to set aside an exchange of part of a lot in Cincinnati, with Watkinsi for a leasehold interest in another lot, which they aver was of grossly unequal value, and brought about by a fraudulent combination of Watkins and Harwood. The fraud is denied by answer.

<p>A valuation of improvements, etc., under the occupying claimant law, is invalid unless reasonable notice of making it be givon to the adverse party, oi his attorney of record.</p>

This is an action of debt from the county of Clermont. It is submitted to the court upon the following statement of facts: The township of Williamsburg originally embraced all the territory constituting the present township of that name, and a large part of the present of Jackson. On June 24, 1834, the township of Williamsburg was divided, and the township of Jackson set off and established.

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Fayette. Held: by deed, from Adam Funk, the following lands, lying in Fayette county, to wit: Survey No. 7251, of 150 acres; No. 3708, of 400 acres; and No. 3789, of 176 acres.

This is an information, in the nature of a quo warranto, from the county of Pike. Held: and still continues to hold, exercise, and discharge the duties, and receive emoluments appertaining to the same, of neither of which offices was he an incumbent on February 15, 1840, contrary to the form of the statute, etc. To this information the defendant has filed two pleas.

This is a bill in chancery from the county of Delaware. In 1835, the Miami Exporting Company having been, for many years, a suspended institution, and being about to recommence-business, made certain dispositions of their then existing debts,, for the benefit of their old stockholders. By a resolution of.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the county of Miami. It brings up the following case by a bill of exceptions: The action was upon a bill of exchange, for $3,000, drawn by Green, upon Bosson & Brothers, to the order of Dana, and indorsed by Dana to the plaintiff, Williams, dated September 16, 1838, payable in ten months, and accepted.

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Hamilton county.

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Hamilton county. The record shows that at the January term of said court, 1841, the plaintiff in error was indicted by the grand jury for acting as an officer of a bank not incorporated by law.

This is a writ-of error to the court of common pleas of Hamilton county.

This is an action of debt, from the county of Hamilton. It is brought on a recognizaance of special bail, for James Gonsoles, entered into on March 17, 1838. At the February term of Hamilton common pleas, 1840, the plaintiffs recovered a judgment against Gonsoles for $860.50. On May 12,1840, a ca. sa. was issued against Gonsoles, upon affidavit, that he was non-resident. The execution was returned non est.

<p>This is an action of debt, upon an agreed state of facts, from the county of Stark.</p> <p>The Farmers’ Bank of Canton was incorporated by act of December 16, 1817. By the application, to them, of section 27 of the’ act of 1816 (2 Chase’s L. 913), dividends of so much of the profits of the institution as the directors might judge expedient were to be made semi-annually. By the act of 1831, “to tax bank, insurance, and bridge companies ” (Swan’s Stat. 916), the board of directors of each bank, etc., were to transmit to the auditor of state a statement of all dividends made by such bank within ten days after it may be made, so that a tax of five per centum on the dividend may be computed and collected. A penalty, not exceeding $1,000 is imposed, in case of refusal.</p> <p>It is agreed that the bank, between 1832 and 1837, besides its-ordinary dividends, upon which the state tax was duly paid, at' four different times, between the years 1832 and 1837, “ applied and appropriated sums which amount, in the aggregate, to $50,000' of the profits of the business, carried on by said bank, to the payment of the capital stock of the bank, belonging to the stockholders,” without complying with the above requisition of the law,. This action of debt is brought to recover from them the four penalties claimed to have been incurred by these neglects; and it presents the question, whether a tax attaches to such profits,, earned by the bank, as are applied in payment of its stock, belonging to the stockholders.</p>

This is an information, in the nature of a quo warranto, filed by the prosecuting attorney of Montgomery county, against the defendants, to show by what authority they exercise banking powers.

This is a bill in chancery from the county of Erie. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. No arguments came to the hands of the reporter.

This is an action of assumpsit, from Hamilton county. The declaration contains three counts.

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Hamilton, to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real estate. The complainants are the assignees of Charles Shultz; and, as such assignees, were the owners of the property described in the-bill.

<p>No arguments came to the reporter.</p>

<p>The power to change the venue rests in the sound discretion of the court, and must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.</p> <p>The venue should not be changed on the affidavit of the party alone, hut only upon clear and satisfactory proof that fair and impartial justice probably can not he obtained in tho county where the suit was commenced.</p>

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of the county of Cuyahoga.

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Athens. It comes before the court upon a demurrer to the bill.

This is an action of ejectment, on an agreed statement of facts, from Brown county. It was agreed as follows: “ 1. That the plaintiff and defendants claim under one George Poage, whoso title covers the premises in controversy. “2. That the deed from the said Poage to the lessor of the plaintiff, dated October 19, 1838, includes the slope of the bank of the Ohio river, from low-water mark to the top of the bank. “3.

This is a writ of error, to the court of common pleas of the county of Jefferson. „ The original suit was brought by the indorsee of a bill of exchange against the drawer. The declaration alleges the bill to have been made at Steubenville, Ohio, and that it was duly presented, for payment, to Force, the acceptor, at Pittsburg, and payment refused. The case was tried by a jury, wlo returned a verdict for $4,070, the amount of principal and interest of the bill.

This is a motion for a new trial, from the county of Hamilton.

This is a motion for a new trial, from the county of Belmont. The action was assumpsit, against the maker of the promissory note, for $666.66§, dated August 23, 1838, at six months, payable at the Franklin Bank of Cincinnati, to Joseph S. Benham, or order, and was indorsed, and transferred to the plaintiff, by Ben-ham, before maturity, in payment of a precedent debt.

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of G-reene. The complainants filed their bill to obtain the legal title to a part of sundry tracts of land granted by the United States, *in satisfaction of Virginia military land warrant No. 3,286, for 2,666f acres of land, issued to John McAdams, for services as a lieutenant in the war of the revolution. McAdams, by his will, made his sister Charlotte his residuary legatee, under whom both parties to this suit claim title.

This is a writ of error to the Suprerr e Court of the county of Fairfield.

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Hamilton, for the foreclosure and sale of mortgaged premises. The mortgage was given to secure the payment of two notes, one of which has been paid. To the second note was attached a condition, that it is not to become due, unless Mrs. Dayton’s dower interest, in a certain square in Cincinnati, shall be released. The bill avers, that Mrs. Dayton had no dower in the premises, and, the condition being void, the note is due.

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Stark. The bill states that, in the years 1836 and 1837, the complainants, with one Gregory Powers, since deceased, were merchants in business, under the firm name and description of McNaughten, Powers & Co., and, during their continuance in business, sold and delivered large quantities of merchandise to the respondents, who were likewise merchants in company, under the name and firm of H. & R. Partridge & Co., which said…

<p>A sheriff’s deed takes effect from the day of sale, so as to pass whatever interest the judgment debtor had in the lands sold at the time of the levy.</p> <p>The covenants in a deed which operate as estoppels, are those running with the land.</p>

<p>There can he no appeal to the Supreme Court, from a judgment of the court of common pleas, on a petition, under the statute, for partition.</p>

<p>The existence of a law in a sister state, or foreign jurisdiction, is matter of fact, triable by a jury, and provable, if necessary, by witnesses.</p> <p>Where a plea discloses a defense under a statute of Pennsylvania, the modifications that statute received in Pennsylvania, either by construction or otherwise, not merely depending upon the just interpretation of the words of the statute, are facts, to be disclosed by replication.</p>

<p>The probate of a will, taken witbin tbe county, at another place than the county seat, by the associate judge, is competent evidence to establish the will.</p> <p>The solemn adjudications of courts having jurisdiction over the subject mat. ter, are not void, but valid until reversed.</p>

This is a motion for a new trial from Shelby county. The action was brought upon the official bond of defendant’s intestate, as treasurer of the county of Shelby, to recover money alleged to have been received by him on the sale of certain school lands.

This was a writ of error from the court of common pleas of Hamilton county. On the trial below, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants, under the charge of the court, to which the plaintiff excepted. The bill of exceptions shows that the defendants were in possession of certain premises as lessors. That Armstrong purchased these premises of the owner.

This is a bill in chancery from the county of Fairfield. The state of the pleadings and the material facts appear in the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Hamilton county. The facts appearing upon the record are stated in the opinion of the court. Wright & Miner, for plaintiff in error, made the following points: 1. The indictment names a single day, on which the offense was committed, without saying before or after, or *using a videlicet. The prosecution should, therefore, be confined to the day laid in the indictment. 2.

<p>An indictment for resisting an officer in the execution of his duty, must set forth all the facts necessary to constitute the offense.</p>

This was a bill in chancery, for partition, from Sandusky county. The facts and legal questions arising are stated in the opinion of the court.

This is a bill in chancery from Muskingum county. The bill shows that the complainant has a judgment against James Doster and others,' which is unsatisfied, and that the judgment debtors have no property liable to execution at law; that an execution issued upon his judgment, and was levied on March 5, 1842, on all the interest of Doster in a parcel of land, situated in Morgan county, Ohio, and in a certain water privilege thereto-belonging, which land and easement were…

This is a motion for a new trial, in an action of assumpsit, from the countv of Butler. The declaration in this case is founded on a promissory note, bearing date August 12, 1838, for $770, payable twelve months after date, to the order of the plaintiff.

This is a motion for a new trial, in an action of replevin, reserved from Williams county.

This is a certiorari, from the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, to reverse certain proceedings in that court, on a motion to retax costs. Judgment had been rendered against the defendant in a suit pending in said court, wherein Nelson J. Elliott and Richard S. Elliott were plaintiffs.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Cuyahoga county. The plaintiffs in error gave a joint promissory note, which came by indorsement into the hands of Collins. The signatures were as follows: “ Gay &Hubbell, Irad Kelly, surety, Abraham Ilickox.” In the suit on this note, the common general judgment was ren. dered against all. A writ of error was prosecuted, because the court omitted to find, or certify the fact, that Kelly was surety.

This is a bill in chancery from Coshocton county. The bill sets forth, in substance, that on April 13, 1837, a written agreement was entered into, under the hands and seals of the parties, by which the complainant bargained and sold to the respondent lot No. 2.16, in the town of Coshocton, with the improve-merits thereon, immediate possession, rents, etc. That, in consideration thereof, the respondent bargained and sold to the complainant the tract of land lying east of the…

This was a bill in chancery from the county of Sandusky. In November, 1822, a patent issued to Elizabeth Whitaker for 1,280 acres of land, being the “ Whitaker reserve,” in Sandusky county. On June 3, 1823, Elizabeth Whitaker conveyed the entire reserve to George F. Whitaker, in fee; and on October 10, 1823, George F. conveyed in fee 190 acres, in which was included the land here in controversy, to Isaac Whitaker.

<p>This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Hamiltott county.</p> <p>The plaintiff, in the trial below, offered in evidence as the foundation of his recovery, a deed for the land in question, bearing date November 18, 1826, from William H. Harrison and wife, Jacob Burnet and wife, and Lewis Whiteman and wife, to Isaac Cr. Burnet. This deed contained the following recital: “ Whereas, the parties of the first part are indebted to the estate of Hr. Elias Boudinot, late of the State of New Jersey, deceased, in the sum of about $4,000, on account of the purchase of the premises hereinafter mentioned, and have agreed to convey the said premises to t,he party of the second part, with power to sell and convey the same and apply the proceeds to the payment of the said debt, the amount of which will be ascertained by reference to a bond now in the hands of the executors of the said Elias, and which is considered as a lien on said land. Now this indenture witnesseth, that the parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the premises, and for the further consideration of one dollar to them in hand, well and truly paid, etc., have granted, bargained, and sold, etc.</p> <p>The deed then proceeds, in the usual form, with covenants of warranty. Both parties claiming under William H. Harrison, there was no question raised by either party as to his title. The defendant claimed the land in controversy by virtue of a deed made by the sheriff of Hamilton county, on a sale of the premises as the property of William H. Harrison, upon a decree against him in 1828; under which sale, the defendant *went into possession. The defendant then offered evidence tending to show that the debt, mentioned in the deed to Isaac G-. Burnet, was paid before the sale under which defendant claimed, and asked the court to charge the jury that if they were satisfied that said debt was so paid, the plaintiff’s title was extinguished, and he had no right to recover. The court refused to charge as requested, but charged that, if the debt was paid it would not defeat the plaiptiff’s title. To this opinion of the court exceptions were taken, and they are now assigned for error.</p>

<p>A sheriffs return that he could find no goods or chattels, lands or tenements of the principal debtor, unincumbered by mortgage, is sufficient to authorize suit on an injunction bond.</p>

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Knox. The object of the bill is to compel the defendant, Abram Darling, to relinquish his claim to the southwest quarter of section 7, township 5, and range 10, in the county of *Knox, or to surrrender his rights under the will of William Darling. At the date of the will, the testator and the defendant were tenants in common of the quarter section, the patent having issued to both.

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Franklin. This bill seeks to-set aside a deed executed by Charles R. Baldwin and Mary Jane, his wife, to Robert O. Spencer, in trust, and a deed executed by said Spencer to Charles R. and Mary Jane Baldwin, to them jointly, their heirs and assigns, and to the survivor of them, his or her separate heirs and assigns.

<p>This is a bill in chancery from Hamilton county.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

These were actions of ejectment from the county of Muskingum, and were submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts.

This was an action of assumpsit from tho county of Knox, reserved on a motion for a new trial by the defendants, against whom a verdict was rendered on the circuit. The case was argued, in support of the motion, by H. B. Curtis, and Goddard & Converse, and by C. Delano and H. Stanbery, contra. The material facts and points made are stated in the opinion of the court.

This is a motion for a new trial, in an action of trover, from tho county of-Huron. It is submitted to the court upon the following agreed case : “ On February 12, 1839, the plaintiff, Case, leased to Petty and Brayton a portion of his farm, in the township of Lyme, Huron county.

<p>Tho county commissioners are, by law, required to furnish buildings and everything necessary to be used and employed in the public administration of justice, and are chargeable with the purchase of a press for the seal of the court.</p> <p>The secretary of state is required, by law, to furnish all seals for the several courts, as well in case of loss as in the first instance.</p> <p>Assumpsit is the proper form of action against the commissioners, by the clerk, for the price of the press.</p>

This is an action on the case from G-reene county. The suit was brought by the plaintiif against the trustees of Zenia township, for refusing his vote.

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Gallia county. The original action was against the defendants, trustees of Wilkesville township, for refusing to receive the plaintiff's vote an election for justice of the peace.

<p>A school subscription in aid of the common school fund imposes no obligation to pay, if black children are admitted into the school, or those who are notoriously vicious, corrupt, immoral, or profane.</p>

This is a bill in chancery, for partition, from the county of Greene. Daniel Staley died in 1829, intestate, seized of a tract of land, in Greene county; and left, surviving him, a widow and six children. Forty-five acres of the tract were, in 1831, set off to the widow for her dower. In 1839, the complainant purchased the widow’s dower estate, and then bought the interest in remainder therein of one of the heirs at law.

<p>An incorporated road company, which is authorized by its charter to lay out and construct a turnpike road, not exceeding one hundred feet in width, to erect gates and colleot toll, has no right to appropriate, for a toll-house land lying without the line of the road.</p>

This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Hamilton. The bill states that, at the February term of the court of common pleas, 1837, the complainants recovered a judgment, at law, against Charles F. Kellogg and David G-.

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Ashtabula county. The case was this: Complaint had been made by the plaintiff in error before Crosby, a justice of the peace, against Abijah South-wick for perjury. On the hearing of this complaint, the plaintiff in error was examined on oath as a witness. In the course of examination, it became a material question, whether a note for $17.38 had been given by Southwick to Halleck on a settlement between them.

This is a writ of error todhe court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county. The plaintiff in error was indicted under section 29 of the act providing for the punishment of crimes, Swan’s Stat. 236, for “selling, bartering, and disposing of two certain counterfeit bank notes to one Seth Goodwin.” The proof was that the counterfeit notes were passed to Goodwin, as true and genuine bills, in exchange for other bank paper.

<p>The amendment to the city charter of Cincinnati, passed March 12, 1838, has never been duly accepted.</p> <p>The liability of a lessee to pay rent subsists, notwithstanding the leasehold has been appropriated for a street, and he is entitled to a compensation from the city for this liability.</p>

This is a bill in chancery, from Muskingum county. The material facts upon which the cause was decided, are set forth in the opinion of the court.

This was a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Washington county. The original action was trespass, in which a verdict was rendered for the defendant.

<p>This is a bill of chancery, from the county of Pike.</p> <p>The bill is filed by the complainants, setting forth a loan of money from the respondent, Joseph Gill, at a rate of interest of ten and twelve per centum per annum, and which the answer shows, from time to time, liquidated and paid, as the time was extended for the' payment of the original loan. The loan was $4,500, for which a bond was executed, with a warrant of attorney to confess a judgment for the amount due, with two and a half per centum, as attorney’s fees, for collection, and on which judgment was rendered for the balance due, nearly $5,000, with two and a half per centum, collecting fee. Execution was issued, and levied on the complainants’ property.</p> <p>An injunction was allowed on this bill, and the respondent restrained from the collection of this judgment; and the complainants pray that an'account may be taken of the loan, the amount of interest paid, and the attorney’s fees, and that the respondent be decreed to credit, on the execution, all excess over six per centum, and the attorney’s fees, for which judgment was taken, and for other relief. Gill answered, and the above allegations are substantially admitted.</p>

This was a motion to quash an appeal, from the county of Trumbull. Judgment had been rendered against the plaintiffs in the court of common pleas, and they gave notice of their intention to appeal t.o the Supreme Court. Within the thirty days, the following bond was filed in the clerk’s office : “ Know all men by these presents, that I, Jacob H. Baldwin, as. principal, am held and firmly bound unto Horace Stevens, in the penal sum of $100.

<p>This was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of G-reene county.</p> <p>The original action was assumpsit. The declaration was on the common counts, the plea non assumpsit. At the May term of the Supreme Court, 1841, the cause came on for trial, and, by consent of parties, was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. The court found for defendant, and rendered judgment in his favor for costs. A bill of exceptions was taken, which showed the following facts:</p> <p>In 1824, James Collier, the defendant in error, was appointed commissioner of insolvents, under the law then existing, and was not thereafter reappointed. He was at no time appointed under the act of 1831. In December, 1832, Collier, holding himself out as commissioner of insolvents for Greene county, one Robert C. Poland, believing him to be such commissioner, made application to him for the benefit of the act for the relief of insolvent debtors, gave in his schedule,' made an assignment, took the oath, and gave the bond required, with George Job, the plaintiff in error, as one of the sureties. The proceedings were returned to the court of common pleas, there dismissed, and the bond forfeited.</p> <p>The bond was put in suit by Collier as commissioner, judgment rendered in his favor against Job for the penalty, and $800 has been paid by the plaintiff in error in part satisfaction. To recover back the sum so paid to Collier, this suit was brought.</p>

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Ashtabula county. The plaintiff in error was tried and found guilty of manslaughter. On the trial, a bill of exceptions was taken to the ruling of the-court, on the admission of testimony, and to the instructions given to the jury.

This is an action of debt, from Perry county, upon the following agreed case: “ The defendants commenced the business of merchandising at Somerset, in Perry county, as partners, after March 1,1841.

This is a rule from the Supreme Court of Muskingum county, upon the defendant, to show cause why he should not be suspended from practicing as an attorney and counselor at law. The material facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error, to the court of common pleas of Lawrence county. The plaintiff in error was indicted for horse stealing. The court charged the jury that if the horse was stolen by the accused in the State of Illinois, and brought by him into the State of Ohio, he might be convicted of the crime of horse stealing in this state. This charge is claimed to be erroneous.

<p>In this state the guardianship of a minor female expires, by operation of law, when the ward arrives at the age of twelve years.</p> <p>A guardian, appointed for such ward, when under the age of twelve years, can not, as such guardian, by petition filed after the ward arrives at the age of twelve years, sell the ward’s land.</p> <p>A sale, under an order of court upon such petition, is void.</p>

These suits are a bill and cross-bill in chancery from Cuyahoga county, to settle liens and priorities between creditors, by judgment and otherwise, of Clarke and Willey. *Tbe Western Reserve Bank recovered judgment, by cognovit, against James Clarke, Willey, and Edmund Clarke, on May 12, 1837. Edmund Clarke is really a surety, but the judgment is entered against the defendants generally, without any certificate of the fact.

<p>This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Trumbull county.</p>

<p>An objection to the examination of a defendant in chancery as a witness,, without special order, comes too late at the final hearing and after cross-examination.</p> <p>Where a parol contract for the purchase or sale of lands is admitted by the-defendant in his answer, without relying upon the statute of frauds as a defense, performance will be decreed.</p> <p>Possession, obtained under a contract of purchase, does not become adverse to the vendor, while the contract is acted upon, and payment made.</p> <p>What protection will be extended to a bona fide purchaser, without notice, ia a question which does not arise where .neither party has the legal title.</p> <p>As between equities, the elder will prevail.</p>

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Trumbull county. The action below was against the canal-boat Huron, to recover the price of provisions, furnished to the master, for the use of the .boat, by Simmons. The record shows, that the supplies furnished consisted of sugar, flour, potatoes, bread, and similar articles, to said boat, while navigating the Pennsylvania and Ohio canal, within the borders of the State of Ohio.

This is a bill in chancery from Pickaway county. On March 3, 1837, the complainant executed to the defendants four several promissory notes for 35375 each, payable, with interest, on March 1, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, in consideration of certain patent rights assigned to him.

This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of San-dusky county. The plaintiff in error was indicted upon two counts; in the-first, ■for uttering and publishing a counterfeit bank bill; in the second, for an attempt to utter and publish said bill.

This was an action of ejectment, from Lake county. The plaintiff counts upon a demise from three of the four heirs ■of John Kinsman, and upon a demise from Jabez Adams. The •defendant shows no other title than the possession. The plaintiff’s right to recover something is admitted, and the point in dispute is, for what quantity judgment shall be taken. The case was argued by Webb, Perkins and Osborn, for plaintiffs, and by Hitchcock and Wilder, for defendant.

This is a bill of review for errors in law. The object of it is to reverse a decree of the Supreme Court of Fairñeld county, rendered at the November term, 1840.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the county of Ross. The case was elaborately argued by T. Ewing and A. G-. Thurman, for the plaintiff in error, and by Creighton & Green, and H. Stanbery, for the defendant in error. The points made will be’ found in the opinion of the court.

This is an action of assumpsit, from the county of Clinton. The case was submitted to the court, on the last circuit, in Clinton county, and reserved here for the consideration of all the judges. The declaration counts upon a bill of exchange, drawn by James Reed and Absalom Reed, on the defendant, John Reed, dated on January 2, 1841, at Cincinnati, for $3,666.99, payable to the order of Eli Hall, at the Bank of Philadelphia, four months after the date thereof.

This is a petition in the nature of a bill in chancery against the State of Ohio, under a special act of the general assembly, passed March 12, 1839, 37 Ohio L. 220, which provided: “That Morris Seely, of the county of Montgomery, be *and ho is hereby authorized and empowered to institute, commence, and prosecute an amicable suit, by filing his petition in the nature of a chancery proceeding in the court of common pleas, within and for the county of Montgomery, at any time…

This is an information, in the nature of a quo warranto, from Huron county.