defective, the latter Court awarded a cer- Ibid. was objected to, the grounds of the objec- Ibid. 58. While the rule of practice in the Su- Ibid. 59. The omission of a similiter to the gene- 375 384 62. A judgment rendered on a new trial will to prevent a continuance, makes no differ ence. Ibid. 64. Where the evidence given at the trial is not in the record, it will be presumed that the judgment was in accordance with it. Ibid. 65. Objections to the competency of witnesses in a cause tried in 1842, must have been made at the trial or they will not be noticed by the Supreme Court.-Zion et al. v. The State ex rel. Norris et al., 397 66. A plaintiff who has voluntarily abandoned his suit has no right to an appeal. -The State Bank v. Hayes, 400 67. A fact in issue, and which was necessary to have been proved to authorize the judgment of the Circuit Court, will be presumed to have been proved, if the record does not show the contrary.-Halsey v. Matthews, 404 68. The party, who by his pleading has tendered an immaterial issue, cannot have the judgment reversed because the case was tried on that issue, and the judg ment was, therefore, not decisive of the merits.-O'Neal v. Wade, 410 69. A judgment of the Circuit Court will not be reversed for an erroneous ruling of the Court, when the party complaining has not been injured thereby.-Alden et al. v. Barbour et al., 414 418 70. The setting aside of a special plea cannot be complained of when another remains under which the defense set up in the former plea could be proved in bar of the action.Wood v. Commons, 71. A judgment will not be reversed because an erroneous instruction was given to the jury, if it could have done the parIbid. ty complaining no injury. 72. Where the evidence is not contained in the record, the Court will presume that the facts proved were such as to authorize the judgment.-Higman v. Brown, 430 73. An objection to evidence given in a cause tried before the passage of the act of 1851 on the subject, will be held to have been properly overruled, if the ground of the objection does not appear in the record.Hesler v. Degant, 501 74. Objections to instructions given to the jury will not be regarded, if the record does not show that the instructions were excepted to when they were given, or at any time before the jury gave their ver dict. Ibid. 75. Where an instruction given to the jury is objected to, but the evidence given at the trial is not contained in the record, and it does not of itself appear to be objectionable, the verdict of the jury will 79. A plaintiff who has suffered a voluntary non-suit cannot afterward prosecute a writ of error for a refusal of the Court, upon his motion, to reinstate the cause.-Wilson v. The Etna Insurance Company, 557 80. If the minutes of evidence taken by counsel should be surreptitiously introduced into the jury-room by the procurement of his client or the connivance of a juror, and should be there read and used as a basis for arriving at a verdict, or should otherwise influence the finding of the jury, it would be good cause for setting aside the verdict and awarding a new trial; but where such minutes have got before the jury by accident and have not influenced their verdict, it will not be.— Ball v. Carley, 577 the note, made an oral agreement with the principal for a new loan of the money, upon the sole responsibility of the latter; but the Court instructed the jury that the evidence constituted no defense to the action. Held, that the instruction of the Court was erroneous.-Musgrave et al. v. Glasgow, 31 2. A surety, who has discharged a judgment rendered against him for a debt of his principal, by executing a note not negotiable by the law-merchant, and a mortgage, for the amount of the judgment, cannot sue his principal for money paid until he has paid the note and mortgage, or a part thereof.-Bennett v. Buchanan, 47 3. To an action by the assignee against the makers of a promissory note, being principal and sureties, the defense was that, after the note became due, and before the assignment, the time of payment was extended by agreement between the principal and payee, without the consent or knowledge of the sureties. The only evidence of such extension was three indorsements made upon the note by the payee, after it became due, each a year apart from the other, to the effect that he had, at the date of the indorsements severally, received the interest for a year in advance, and the note was to stand, without suit, to the end of the year. Held, that it did not appear that the time of payment was extended by agreement made by the payee with the principal, nor that the interest might not have been paid by either or all of the makers.Cheek et al. v. Glass, 286 4. A valid agreement by a creditor with the principal debtor, without the consent of the surety, not to sue for a limited time after the debt is due, discharges the surety.-Harbert v. Dumont et al., 346 their wives, were the owners in fee of the 7. The holder of a note payable at a char- 8. An indorser who has received due notice 296 11. A promissory note was dated at Lafay 12. Where, in a suit by the assignee against 13. A note, the assignment of which was Ibid. 14. In a suit by the payee against the ma- 15. Where a note has been surrendered by 337 19. A promissory note was made payable to A., his agent or attorney. Held, that while unnegotiated, suit could only be brought upon the note in the name of A. -Templin v. Krahn, 373 20. A promissory note, which had not been negotiated, was lost, and nothing had been heard of its existence, although four years had elapsed from the time when it became due. At the end of the four years, suit was brought upon it-the declaration alleging the loss, &c. Held, that the suit would lie. Ibid. 21. In debt by the payee to recover the amount of a lost note, the plaintiff proved by a witness that a note of the maker, dated on or about the date of the note described in the declaration, and otherwise corresponding with it, had been left with him to collect the interest; that he had made diligent search for the note and could not find it; and that neither the payee nor any other person ever got the note, to his knowledge, out of his possession. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a judgment for the plaintiff. Ibid. 22. Where notes are given to secure the purchase-money of land, payable respectively on or before a given day, under a contract that a deed is to be executed for the land on the payment of the notes, a suit cannot be maintained on either of the notes after the last has become due, unless a deed was tendered on or before the day when the last note matured.-Malaby et ux. v. Kuns, 388 23. A promissory note not payable at a chartered bank, is not, in this state, governed by the law-merchant. - Blount v. Riley, 471 24. Where a promissory note, whether negotiable by the law-merchant or not, has been assigned after it became due, the admissions of the assignor made before the assignment that the note had been paid, are admissible in evidence against the assignee. Ibid. ported the sale to the county commissioners as having been made at 60 dollars, which report was accepted; and that the defendant had already paid with the said 40 dollars the amount of 60 dollars, at which sum the lot was reported as having been sold. Held, that these facts were no defense against the note. Ibid. 27. Debt by The State on the relation of S., the clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court upon a sealed note made payable to W. C., school commissioner, or to his successor in office, and given to secure a loan of funds belonging to congressional township No. 26, &c., in Carroll county. By an act of 1844 the office of auditor in said county was abolished and its duties transferred to the clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court. By an act of 1849 the office of school commissioner was abolished and its duties transferred to the auditor and treasurer. Held, that by the act of 1844 the clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court became ex officio the auditor of said county, and it was his duty to bring the present suit; but, held, that, under the R. S. 1843, it should have been brought in the name of the payee of the note.-Bowman et al. v. The State ex rel. Stewart, 524 PROTEST. 25. A note was executed to G., agent of Wells county, or his successor in office, &c. Held, that G.'s successor could not See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 3, 5, 8, 9, 13. PRO sue upon the note.-Upton v. Starr, 508 26. To a suit brought upon a promissory note given to a county agent, the defendant set up in bar of payment that it was given for a part of the purchase-money of a county-seat lot; that the agent sold the lot to the defendant for 100 dollars, of which sum he paid, at the time, 40 dollars, and executed his notes, that in suit being one, for the remaining 60 dollars; that said agent kept the 40 dollars, re MISSORY NOTES, 6, 7, 8. PURCHASE-MONEY. If one of several instalments of purchasemoney for land, be payable before the deed is to be made, it is no defense to a suit brought by the payee to recover such instalment, before the time appointed for the execution of the deed, that the payee had no title to the land at the time when |