Volume 4 — Michigan Reports

These were two applications for writs of mandamus to the State Treasurer, commanding him to give notice that the notes of the Government Stock Bank, at Aim Arbor, would be redeemed at the State Treasurer’s office.

Case reserved from tbe Wayne Circuit, Tbe steamer Globe was built near Detroit, in this State ; and in tbe course of ber construction, contracted a large debt to tbe plaintiffs for materials. Dor this debt, tbe laws of Michigan gave tbe creditors a lien. The Globe was subsequently taken to Ohio, where she contracted further debts for her machinery, and fitting for service.

Case made, and bill of exceptions from Calhonn Circuit Court. The respondent was indicted jointly with one Increase A.Pendleton and one John X. Byers, at the November term of tbe Calhoun Circuit for tbe year 1855, for tbe murder of John A. Wiley. He was tried separately upon the plea of not gnilty, before the Hon. Abner Pratt, Circuit Judge, at tbe November term, 1855, and was found by the jury guilty of murder in tbe first degree.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the plaintiff in error in the Wayne Circuit Court. The cause was tried at September Term, 1855, by a jury, who found the issue for the defendants, and that the defendants had a special property as mortgagees in the goods replevied, to the amount of $523.33, and a judgment was rendered thereon for said sum, with costs.

<p>Case reserved from. Monroe Circuit.</p>

This was an application by the relator, who was a private ■citizen of this State, for an alternative mandamus against the Regents of the University of Michigan, rounded upon his affidavit, which set forth that he was a citizen of this State, that there was, at the time of filing his affidavit, no Professor of Homoeopathy in the department of Medicine of the University, that the Regents, whose duty it was, had not only neglected and refused (although often requested thereto)…

Case reserved from St. Joseph Circuit. This action was brought by Lee against Payne, to recover the value of a grist mill and distillery, situated on section sixteen, in the town of Pawn River, in St. Joseph county, and claimed to have been burned through the carelessness and negligence of the defendant. The cause was tried at the December Term, 1854, by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff of $5,200.

<p>Section í of the Act to prevent the manufacture and sale' of spirituous or intoxicating liquors as a beverage, approved February 3d, 1855, commonly called the “search and seizure clause,” gives no opportunity to the party accused to defend his property; no notice to him of the seizure is required; nor is any means provided by which he is to be informed, when, where, of before whom the search warrant is returned. It is, therefore, repugnant to Sections 28 and 32 of Article VI., of the Constitution, and void.</p> <p>The proceeding provided for in said section, is clearly a criminal proceeding. It makes no difference in its character, that the form of the proceeding is assimilated to that of a civil action.</p>

<p>Trover for $685 in gold coin. The plaintiff claimed the coin as Administrator of the estate of one B., who died possessed of it, and on whose death, and before the plaintiff beeame Administrator, it came into the possession of the defendant. The defendant claimed that it belonged to the estate of one O.; that O. died intestate; that he left no widow surviving him, and but one child, and that the defendant was the guardian of this child, and he insisted that as such guardian of O.’s sole next of kin, he was entitled to the coin as against the plaintiff. It did not appear that administration had ever been granted upon O.’s estate. Held, that conceding the facts claimed in defence, the-plaintiff had the better right to the coin, and was entitled to recover.</p> <p>Held, further, that the plaintiff was not estopped from maintaining the action for the whole of the coin, by the fact that after he became Administrator, he had, in his individual capacity, borrowed a portion of it from the defendant, each party’s claim of right to it being fully known at the time the loan was made.</p> <p>The possessor of personal property of an intestate may maintain trover for its-conversion against a mere wrong-doer, or one having no better right than himself; and if the possessor die, his Administrator may also bring trover for a conversion of the property taking place after his intestate’s death, and prior to his own appointment as Administrator.</p> <p>Until administration and distribution, the next of kin of an intestate has no more right tp the possession of the personal property of the estate than any mere stranger.</p>

Case reserved from Ingham Circuit . This was an action of ejectment, to recover possession of 160 acres in the township of Bunkerhill, Ingham county. The canse was tried before the lion. David Johnson, Circuit Judge, without a jury, and upon the trial and argument of the cause the Circuit Judge found and certified to this Court the following facts : The plaintiff showed a conveyance of the premises from the United States to Tf.

<p>Section 29, Chapter 25, of the Revised Statutes, providing, among other things, that all roads not recorded which have been used as public highways twenty years or more, shall he deemed public highways, applies not only to cases where the period of twenty years had elapsed at the taking effect of the law, but also to cases whore the full period should not elapse until afterwards. It makes no difference in computing the time, that part of the twenty years had run when the Revised Statutes took effect, and part of it afterwards.</p> <p>The provisions of Sections 2 and 14, Article IS, of the Constitution, that private property cannot be taken for public purposes, except the necessity for using it, and the compensation to be made therefor, shall be ascertained by a jury of twelve freeholders, etc., in no way affects the case where the owner actually dedicates his property to the public for their use, or where, from his long acquiescence in the public use of it, a dedication is presumed by law.</p> <p>A variation of two or three rods in the traveled track at one end of a highway, made such by twenty years’ user, the variation having existed only twelve years, will not take away the right of the public to use the road. A dedication of a highway, when not expressly or impliedly restricted by the owner, is not confined to the beaten track, but includes the four rods in width, as provided by statute.</p>

This action was ejectment to recover forty acres of land in the township of Dearborn, Wayne county, commenced June 29th, 1853. The plaintiffs were the heirs of the original patentee of the land, and proved title in themselves.

<p>The Director of a School District is not legally entitled to any compensation from the district for his legal services.</p> <p>Semble, That a School District has no power to levy a tax for the purpose of paying its Director for his services.</p>

<p>Case made from Wayne Circuit.</p>

<p>The plaintiff in an action of trespass averred, that, being in possession of certain premises, the defendant entered upon, took possession of, and ejected him therefrom, and still held the same by force, etc.; and also at the same time, took and converted to his own use certain personal property, specifying the kinds and value of the same particularly. On the plea of general issue, there was a general verdict for plaintiff of §650. Held, That the averment of the taking, etc., of the personal property, was not mere matter of aggravation of the eviction and detainer, but the averment of a distinct cause of action, and the verdict being general, the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment for three times the amount, as he would have been under Section 3, Chapter 111, of the Revised Statutes, had he declared for the entry and eviction only.</p>

The defendant in error filed, as the commencement of suit, a declaration against plaintiffs in error with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne in assumpsit; he also entered the usual rule to plead. A copy of the declaration, and also a notice of the rule that plaintiffs in error were required to appear and plead to said declaration within twenty days after service of a copy of declaration, etc., was afterwards filed in the Circuit Court.

<p>Application for a mandamus.</p>

Case made from the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Hanke, the defendant in error, against Webber, before a Justice of the Peace. The declaration was generally for work and labor, materials furnished, &c. The plea was general issue only. Judgment was rendered by the Justice for Hanke. Webber sued out a writ of certiorari to the Wayne Circuit Court, where the judgment of the Justice was affirmed. The cause came before this Court by writ of error, sued out by Webber.

<p>Where the purchaser at Sheriff’s sale, by a fraudulent combination with the Sheriff and judgment debtor to prevent competition at the sale, is enabled to purchase property at much less than its value, the sale will be held void as against creditors.</p> <p>Where a junior execution creditor becomes the purchaser of chattels, before fraudulently sold upon a prior execution, the mere inadequacy of the sum bid by him will, not affect his purchase. The cloud cast upon the title by the former sale, is a sufficient answer to the objection of inadequacy.</p> <p>The docket of a Justice stated that the cause was called, and judgment rendered on the return of process. “ Return of process” held to mean the return day of the process, and not the time of its actual return.</p> <p>A statement of the docket that judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff —there being only one defendant — sufficiently shows that judgment was rendered against the defendant.</p>

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit. This was an action of ejectment, brought by plaintiffs to recover lots 96, 97, and 98, of section 1 of the recorded sections of the City of Detroit, according to the Governor’s ■ and Judges’ plan of said sections.

The bill in this canse was filed by the widow of one Thomas Cranson, deceased, against Ms beirs-at-law, to set aside a deed of certain lands, claimed to have been made and delivered in fraud of complainant’s marital rights, and for dower, etc., in said lands, and also to set aside a bill of sale of personal property, made by said Thomas Cranson to his sons just before Ms death, and for ber distributive share thereof; and also, for the value of personal property brought by…

This was an action of trover brought by Eansom against Davis, to recover the value of a gold watch and chain, which he alleges were wrongfully converted by the latter. The trial was had before the Tlon. D. Johnson, Circuit Judge, without a jury.

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit. The defendant sold spirituous liquors without showing that he was a druggist, or that he had any right to sell the same under Section 14 of “ An Act to prevent the manufacture and sale of Spirituous and Intoxicating Liquors,^as a beverage,” approved February 3d, 1855.

This was a case, tried originally before a Justice of the Peace of the City of Detroit, wbo rendered judgment in favor of the present plaintiff in error. It was brought on a balance claimed to be due to defendant in error, for work and labor. After judgment, the cause was appealed to the Wayne Circuit Court, and their judgment was rendered for defendant in error for $27.93, and costs.

This was an action of trespass, commenced by warrant before a Justice of the Peace. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff before the Justice, the defendant removed the cause by certiorari into the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw, where the judgment of tbe Justice was reversed. The plaintiff' thereupon, removed the record into this Court by writ of error.

The action was trover brought by the defendant in error, as plaintiff below, to recover for one hundred and sixteen bushels of wheat, for which he declared. The defendants jointly -pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that the wheat was the property of the defendant, George Watson, and was levied on and sold by the defendant Sutton to the defendant Covert, by virtue of an execution on a judgment of' which defendant Eggleston, was assignee.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for the County of Branch, in Chancery.</p> <p>The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

Case certified from the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne. This was an appeal from the Judge of Probate to tbe Circuit Court for tbe County of Wayne, and certified to this Court for its opinion upon several questions of law raised upon tbe facts, as found by tbe Circuit Court. In tbe Fall of 1833, Gabriel Godfrey died intestate.

This suit was originally commenced before a Justice of the Peace. The summons issued was personally served on the defendant (plaintiff in error) Brooks, and returned non est inventus as to Ellis, who was also named a defendant in the writ. The declaration was in assumpsit against both defendants ; to which Brooks pleaded the general issue.

Case reserved from Jackson Circuit. This was an action of replevin for the recovery of a horse, alleged, to have been unlawfully detained by defendant.

This was an action for money had and received, tried in the Jackson Circuit before a jury, and comes here on bill of exceptions.

The record in this cause showed a suit commenced by declaration, and a judgment obtained by default. It appeared by the record, that the certificate of service of the declaration was endorsed on the original on file.

The defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error upon an account which included a bill of goods sold to one Nolan, on account of the plaintiff in error, and by authority of his clerk. As to the authority of the clerk to give the order in favor of Nolan, upon which, the goods were sold, the testimony was conflicting, and it was sought to establish such authority by showing the custom among merchants in that particular.

This was a complaint under the forcible entry and detainer law, brought before the Circuit Court Commissioner for Oakland County. The trial before the Commissioner resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, and there moved that the complaint be dismissed on account of defects in the complaint. The complaint was dismissed with costs, and the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.

<p>Justices of the Peace have no jurisdiction in actions founded on tort, where the damages exceed $100.</p> <p>Where, however, the .defendant, in an action of tort, omitted to move the question of jurisdiction before the Justice, and also before the Circuit Court, to which the cause was appealed, he cannot make the objection in this Court.</p>

Plaintiff below sued for damages for the forcible detainer of certain premises.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court for tbe County of Wayne, in Chancery. The bill of complaint set out, among other matters, the incorporation of complainants, their purchase of the Michigan Central road, and that by the fifth section of their charter {Session Laws, 1846, page 43), the State intended to guaranty and protect them from being encroached upon or tapped by any other road or roads from the eastern or southern boundary of the State.

This was an action originally brought before a Justice of the Peace, the declaration being upon an account stated.

This was an action of assumpsit against Newberry and P. B. Kercheval (since deceased), as' joint endorsers of a note of one Jamieson. The declaration was in the usual form. Held: that the notice of dishonor of the note was sufficient, in point of form, to bind the defendant.

<p>Section 31 of the Charter of the Michigan Southern Railroad Company (Sess. L. 1E4G, p. 191), provides that “said Company shall pay to the State an annual • tax of one half of one per cent, upon the capital stock paid in, including the five hundred thousand dollars of purchase money paid, or to be paid, to the State, until the first day of January, 1851, and thereafter an annual tax of three-fourths of one per cent, upon its capital stock paid in, including the five hundred thousand dollars of purchase money aforesaid; and also upon all loans made to the said Company for the purpose of constructing said railroad, or purchasing, constructing, chartering, or hiring of steamboats authorized by said Act to be held by said Company ; which tax shall be paid in the last week of January in each year, to the State Treasurer.</p> <p>Section 3 of the Act authorizing the consolidation of the said Michigan Southern Railroad Company with the Northern Indiana Railroad Company, approved February 13, 1855 (Sess. Laws 1855, p. 302), provides that said Corporation, so to bo organized by virtue of said Act, shall continue subject to the same rate of tax as though such consolidation should not take place ; ■ and the amount of its capital and loans thereafter, upon which such taxation should be paid, should be such portion of its capital and loans as is actually employed in the State of Michigan, to be ascertained on or before the first day of January of each year, 'by the Auditor General, from the annual reports of said Corporation, etc. The specific tax assessed upon the Company for 1855, included a sum assessed upon three hundred thousand dollars of its stock, which was allowed by the Company as a “ bonus,” or “ dividend,” to the original purchasers of the road, no part of which was ever “paid in,” though standing on the books as a part of the capital stock. Said specific tax also included an- amount assessed upon the sum of one hundred and eighty-five thousand, four hundred and fifty-nine dollars and eighty-four cents discount, or loss, in the sale of a portion of the bonds issued by tlio Company for loans made for construction, whereby the amount of such loan was less by this sum, than the iaee of the bonds so issued. Another portion of the sum so assessed, was upon the amount of certain bonds issued by the Company in exchange for those of another Company, and which latter were still undisposed of by the Company, and which it was claimed did not, therefore, in fact represent a loan made for the purpose of constructing said railroad.</p> <p>Held, that each of said items constituted a proper basis for computing the specific State tax required by the charter of the Company to be assessed by the Auditor Generali</p>

<p>A party having the title to unoccupied lands, is constructively in possession, and may maintain trespass against one who, without his license or authority, having no color of title to the lands, and whoso acts evince no intention to retain permanent possession, enters upon them, and cuts and carries away standing timber.</p>

Question reserved from Washtenaw Circuit, on motion for a new trial. This was an action on the case, for slander, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, for uttering certain slanderous words, the substance of which was, that the plaintiff had burned the defendant’s mill, and that ho, the defendant, could prove it.

At the March term of the Wayne Circuit Court in 1854, the defendants were indicted, with one Henry H. Bush, for a conspiracy to defraud. They pleaded the general issue to the indictment, and were tried and convicted at the May term, 1855. A motion for new trial, and also in arrest of judgment, was made and overruled, and sentence was passed on the Aldermans in August, 1855.

This was an action on the cage for injury dope to merchandise stored in the plaintiff’s cellar, by reason of tho water from one of the public sewers of the City of Detroit flowing back through his private drain into the cellar.

<p>Section 62, page 145, Session Laws 1853, which requires that, upon the neglect of any Township Treasurer to pay over, or account for, the taxes required by his warrant to be collected, to the County Treasurer, according to law, the County Treasurer shall issue a warrant to the Sheriff, requiring him to collect such money of said Treasurer and his sureties, does not authorize the issuing of such warrant against a defaulting Ward Collector of Taxes of the City of Detroit.</p>

Case made after judgment from Wayne Circuit Court. This was an action of assumpsit on tbe common counts, in which tbe plaintiff sought to charge tbe defendants, Lewis & Rathbun, as acceptors, and the defendant Eitcb, as. drawer, of a bill of exchange, and was tried in tbe Court below without a jury. ... ........ . ■ On tbe trial, it appeared that tbe plaintiff served, with a copy of Ms declaration, copies of tbe draft, and of the paper relied 'on, as an acceptance thereof,…

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit. On the 4th day of December, 1851, the defendant was an incorporated Mining Company, duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of this State.' On that day, the defendant, by its officers, issued and delivered to one TI. J. Buckley, a resident of the City of Detroit, a certificate of stock of said Company.

<p>Error to Monroe Circuit.</p>

This was an action of trespass brought by Rash against Whitney, to recover damages for taking and carrying away one hundred and five bushels of wheat.

<p>By Section 62, page 439, and Section 115, page 449, Session Laws óf 1855, if the written instrument declared on, or set-off, , before a Justiee of the Peace, is filed at the timo of declaring, or pleading, and giving notice of set-off, its execution must be denied on oath at the time of such filing, and not after-wards, in order to put the party relying on it upon proof of its execution.</p>

<p>Error to Washtenaw Circuit.</p> <p>Tbe facts are all stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

Case reserved from Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, brought on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy : “Eor value received, I promise to pay the Wesleyan Seminary, at Albion, or bearer, the sum of one hundred dollars, on or before the first day of January, 1855, with interest, to be paid annually at Albion, at ten per cent., after three years. [Signed] “ M. M. Eisheb. [l. s.] “ Dated, October 20t7i, 1851, Detroit.” On the back of said note was…

This was a motion to quash a writ of error, for want of jurisdiction. The cause originated, before one of the Circuit Court Commissioners for the County of Wayne, acting under the provisions of Chapter 123, Revised Statutes; respecting the recovery of land in certain cases; it was taken by appeal.to the Circuit Court ’ for said County, where it was tried by a jury, and was brought into this -Court by writ of error, on exceptions to the charge of the Court.below.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the purchase price of fifty sets of skeins and boxes.

On case made after judgment. Wayne Circuit Court. The plaintiff brought this action to recover for his services as an attorney and counsellor at law, rendered in a suit brought by the defendant, under a special agreement. The defendant claiming to be the owner in fee of five-sevenths of a certain lot in Detroit, at the time held adversely, employed the plaintiff to prosecute a suit in ejectment, to recover the interest he claimed in the premises.

<p>Error to Berrien Circuit Court.</p>

An action was commenced before a Justice of the Peace' in Kalamazoo County, against Farwell, under section 16* of the “ Act to prevent the manufacture and sale of spirituous- and intoxicating liquors as a beverage.” Judgment was* rendered against bim for $10 damages, and $5 costs, whereupon he removed the cause, by writ of certiorari, to- the* Kalamazoo Circuit Court. At the June term, 1656, of said Court, Hon. Abner Pratfe presiding, the judgment of the Justice was reversed.

This was an action on the case brought against'the Commissioners of Highways of the Township of Niles, as a qxiasi Corporation, under the provisions of Chapter 119, of the Revised Statutes, to recover damages for injuries which the .plaintiff alleged he had sustained, by reason of the non-repair of a certain bridge, part of a public highway, in that township.

<p>Under the third Article of the treaty of 1819 with the Chippewa Indians, a tract of land was reserved for certain members of the tribe; the section, or parcel of each reservee to be afterwards located in such manner as the President of the United States might direct. A certified copy of a map from the General Land Office, on which a certain section was designated as the tract of one of said reservees, is evidence of the due location of such section, according to the conditions of the treaty. The term “ reservation,” in said treaty, is equivalent to an absolute grant, and the title was conferred by the treaty, though not perfect until the location was made, which was necessary to give the grant identity.</p> <p>The Revised Statutes of 1838 require that to deeds by husband and wife, of her real estate, there should be the acknowledgment of both, and the certificate should set forth that she acknowledged that she executed, etc. A certificate that she “ stated,” etc., is void.</p> <p>A certificate of acknowledgment by husband and wife, under Revised Statutes of 1838, not showing affirmatively that the wife’s acknowledgment was taken separately as well as apart from the husband, is void.</p> <p>There is no law authorizing the acknowledgment of a deed, where the acknowledging officer is unacquainted with grantor’s vernacular language, to be taken through a sworn interpreter.</p>

Bill by purchaser, for specific performance of an agreement to convey lands. Upon the hearing, the Circuit Court for the County of Berrien dismissed the bill of complaint, upon which an appeal was taken to this Court. The facts being fully stated in the opinion of the Court, need not be here recited.

Case reserved from Branch Circuit. This was an action of covenant on a lease of real estate, coming to this Court on questions reserved at the Circuit. The case showed that the plaintiff, on the 14th day of June, 1850, leased certain premises to the defendant for the term of four years, and that the defendant, in consideration thereof, covenanted to make certain repairs and improvements on the premises.

Case reserved from St. Joseph Circuit. This was an action of ejectment, brought by Tweed against Metcalf, to recover possession of lands in the Town of Constantine, St. Joseph County, and was tried at the December term, 1853, by the Circuit Judge, without a jury. The plaintiff proved a title to the premises in himself, derived . through intermediate grantors, from the Government, and also the occupation of the lands by the defendant since 1848.

Case made from Berrien Circuit. •The case was this : George Kimmel, tie plaintiff’s testator in his lifetime, held a mortgage on some land in Berrien County, executed by Robert E. Ward and wife. The Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Bank bad a subsequent incumbrance on the same premises. Kimmell brought big bill of foreclosure against Ward ¿nd wife, and made the Bank a party thereto. The Bank, appearing in the case, filed an answer, setting up a defence to the mortgage — usury.

It appeared from the bill of exceptions in this cause, that the action was commenced on a promissory note, dated September 19,1851, for the sum of $300, payable thirty days after date, to the order of William E. Kimball, at the Erie and Kalamazoo Railroad Bank, and signed by Samuel B. Kim-ball, and that this note was subsequently discounted by said Bank.

Case certified from Lenawee Circuit. This was an action of debt, on a recognizance tried at tbe Circuit Court for tbe County of Lenawee, at September term, 1852. Held: etc., then and there to answer to a certain indictment depending against him, the said Benson, for larceny, and then and there to abide the order of the said Circuit Court.

This was an action of replevin, brought by the defendant in error before a Justice of the Peace originally, for certain marble. The marble was the property of the defendant in error, subject to a lien in favor of the plaintiff in error, for an amount due him in his own right, and as agent of the New York and Erie Railroad Company, for freight from New York and for storage at Detroit. The marble was in slabs, sawed from blocks.

<p>A deed of conveyance by husband and wife, with condition that grantee, during the natural lives of grantors, should farm the land conveyed, and pay a portion of the products to grantors, and, at their decease, convey to the surviving children, and, in default of such, to the “right heirs” of grantors; the deed not being in any way executed by the grantee, does not create an irrevocable trust, and vests no estate in such children.</p> <p>The clause in such deed directing a conveyance, etc., is a mere power to convey in the event that grantor and wife should die without making other or further disposition of the land.</p>

Case reserved from Genesee Circuit upon an argreed statement of facts. ' This was an action of ejectment, for certain lands to which plaintiff claimed title, under a deed from the Auditor General, the land having been sold for delinquent taxes for the year 1853. The only question arising upon such title was, the sufficiency of the notice of sale.

Case reserved from the Circuit Court for tbe County of Calhoun, iii Chancery. Held: so as to make the title in him complete. 4. Whether said mortgage in the hands of Bolles, was subject to any claim of the complainant. 5. Whether the land in the hands of Bolles, was subject to any claim of the complainant. 6.

<p>Section 8, Chapter 155, of the Revised Statutes, page 672, provides that every person who shall have in his possession any false, altered, forged or counterfeit bill, or notes, etc., of any banking company established in this State, or any other State or country, with intent to utter or pass the same¡ or render the same current astrue, etc. The words “as true” refer both to the “intent to pass,” and “render the same current;” and an indictment charging the possession of such bills, “ with intent to utter and pass the same,” omitting the words “ as true,” is insufficient.</p> <p>Section 2 of the Act of 1855, relating to indictments (Laws 1855, p. 142), obviates the necessity of setting forth in the indictment a copy of the alleged forged paper, or counterfeit tiills.</p> <p>An averment in the indictment, that the bank whose bills are counterfeited ia an incorporated company, in a place and State mentioned, is equivalent to an averment that it is established in such State.</p> <p>It ia not essential in an indictment for counterfeiting, to describe particularly the bills of the bank to which the forged bills are assimilated, as a general, and not a particular similitude, is all that is required in proof.</p>