STATUTES CONSTRUED AND REFERRED TO~(Continued.)

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Chapter 2093, §§ 1 and 14, Laws; Chapter 1693, §1, Laws.
Ex-parte, Alfred Hunter, 575.

Tates' Adm'r v. Jones' Ex'r, 216.

5 Geo. I., Ch. 13; Thomp. Comp. Eng. Statutes (manuscript), p. 38.
Loring, et al. v. Wittich, 323.

EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF.

Thompson's Digest, 351, 83.

Robinson v. Matthews, 319.

Mayo v. Hynote, 673.

EXCEPTIONS TO CHARGE OF JUDGE TO JURY, AND TO PROCEEDINGS.

Code of Procedure (Chapter 1815), Section 210, Statute of West-
minister II.

Coker & Scheiffer v. Hayes, 368.

STATUTES CONSTRUED AND REFERRED TO-(Continued.)

INJUNCTION BOND.

'Thompson's Digest, 454; Chapters 526 and 1098, Laws.
Thompson v. Maxwell, 773.

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.

Capters 610, 936, Laws.

Trustees I. I. Fund v. St. Johns Railway Co., 531.

Trustees I. I. Fund, et al. v. J. P. & M. R. R., et al., 708.

Act of Congress, September 28, 1850.

Id.

Chapters 610, 734, Laws.

State, ex rel. v. Sullivan, 791.

JUDGMENTS OF JUSTICES OF PEACE, FILING TRANSCRIPT IN CLERK'S
OFFICE AND ISSUING EXECUTION ON.

Chapter 2040, Sections 43, 44, Laws.
Bucky v. Willard, 330.

JURORS AND JURY.

Chapters 47, 1815, 1981, Laws, (Thomp. Dig., 438-9.

County of Nassau v. Downie, 171.

Chapters 2046, 1628, 2043, 3010, Laws.

Gibson v. State, 291.

Chapter 1628, Section 28, Laws.

Coker v. Merritt's Ex'r, 416.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Chapter 2044, Laws.

Barnett v. Togni, 328.

MORTGAGE.

Thompson's Digest, 180, Section 4.

Thompson v. Maxwell, 773.

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT, FILING OF

REASONS FOR.

Thompson's Digest, 351, Section 2, paragraph 1.

Dupuis v. Thompson, 69.

Sedgwick v. Dawkins, 198.

NEW YORK CORPORATION ACT.

Flash, Lewis & Co. v. Conn, 428.

NON-CLAIM, STATUTE OF.

Thompson's Digest, 206, 207.

Gibson v. Mitchell, et als., 519.

Thompson's Digest, 202, Sec. 7, par. 2, Chapter 1732, Laws.
Scott v. Lloyd, et ux., 151.

REVIVAL OF STATUTES.

Thompson's Digest, 22.

SALE OF

County of Nassau v. Downie, 171.

LANDS TO PAY DEBTS OF TESTATOR OR INTESTATE BY PRO-
BATE JUDGE.

Thompson's Digest, 202, 203.

Hays' Adm'x v. McNealy, 409.

SALE OF PROPERTY BY FEME COVErt.

Section 4, act March 6th, 1845; Thompson's Digest, 221, section 5.
Tunno and Jessup & Co. v. Robert, 738.

SHERIFF.

Thompson's Digest, 198-9; Chapter 157, section 3, acts of 1848.
Wilson's Adm'r, et al., v. Dibble, 782.

SEPARATE ESTATE OF MARRIED WOMEN.

Thompson's Digest, 221, act March 6, 1845-
Dollner, Potter & Co, v. Snow, et al., 86.

SERVICE BY PUBLICATION.

Thompson's Digest, 452.

Tunno and Jessup & Co. v. Robert, 738.

SETTING ASIDE EXECUTION ISSUED BY CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT ON
JUSTICES' JUDGMENT.

Thompson's Digest, 360, Section 6.

Bucky v. Williard, 330.

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

Thompson's Digest, 217, 218; 29 Charles II.

Tate's Adm'r v. Jones' Ex'r, 216.

Thompson's Digest, 177, 218.

Tunno and Jessup & Co. v. Robert, 738.

STATUTES CONSTtrued and refeRRED TO (Continued.)

UNLAWFUL DETAINER.

Chapter 1630, Laws.

Gibbs, et al., v. Drew, 147.

VENUE IN ATTACHMENT CASES.

Thompson's Digest, 369, 370, 326.
Canova v. Colby & Gould, 167.

WITNESS.

Chapter 1983.

Tunno and Jessup & Co. v. Robert, 738.

WRIT OF ERROR, AMENDMEnt of.

5 George I., Ch. 13; Thomp. Comp. Eng. Statutes, (Manuscript)
page 38; Chapter 1096, Section 74, Laws; acts of Congress, June
1st, 1872, Chapter 255, Section 3, Volume 17, page 196.

Loring, et al., v. Wittich, 323.

WRIT OF ERROR IN HABEAS CORPUS CAses.

Thompson's Digest, 529, 530, 446, 447.
Tyler v. Painter, 144.

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

1. In pursuance of a parol agreement for the sale and conveyance of
lands, the purchaser paid the price agreed on in full; the purchaser
was a tenant at will, in possession at the time of making the agree
ment, and afterwards remained in possession, erected a dwelling
house and fences, enlarged the enclosures, cultivated the land, set
out fruit trees and pruned the trees already grown, and treated the
property as his own, enjoyed it as the home of his family, receiv-
ing the crops and the proceeds of the fruit for years, with the knowl
edge and without objection by the seller or his heirs or representa-
tives: Held, Upon bill filed for a specific execution of the agree

ment:

2. That upon a parol agreement for the sale of lands, the payment of
the purchase price alone is not sufficient to take the case out of the
statute of frauds. Tates' Adm'r v. Jones' Ex'r, 216.

3. That the payment of the purchase-money, followed by delivery of
possession, under a parol agreement for a sale of lands, or followed
by a continued possession by the purchaser, (if already in posses-
sion,) and circumstances showing that the subsequent possession
was inconsistent with the original tenancy, and was consistent only
with, and legitimately referable to the agreement for a purchase and
sale, constitute such part performance that the seller is estopped
from insisting that the agreement was not signed, and a specific ex-
ecution of the agreement may be decreed. Id.

4. There is no rule that the improvements made by a purchaser under a

STATUTE OF FRAUDS (Continued.)

parol agreement for the purchase of lands shall be of any specified
value, in order to warrant the inference that they were made
with reference to the contract. It is enough that they are of such
a character, and made under such circumstances, that it will be in-
ferred that they were made because of the agreement to convey. Id.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

1. A promise by a member of a late copartnership, made after dissolution
and before a suit is barred by the statute of limitations, to pay a part-
nership debt, will not prevent the running of the statute so as to estop
the other partner from availing himself of the defence of the statute
as against the original cause of action; and this whether the creditor
was aware of the dissolution or not. Tate v. Clements, 339.

2. Nor does an admission by one partner, after dissolution, that a debt
is due, bind the other late partner so as to take the case out of the
statute as to the latter. Id.

3. The "cause of action" in a suit for goods sold is the express or im-
plied promise to pay, and a promise by the party sought to be
charged, or facts from which a promise legally results, within the
period of the statute of limitations, must be shown to defeat the
operation of the statute. Id.

4. A member of a copartnership, after the dissolution, has no agency
growing out of the former partnership relation to create or perpet-
uate a liability of his late copartner for partnership indebtedness as
against the operation of the statute of limitations. Id.

5.

A suit by a co-surety against the heirs of a deceased co-surety for
contribution is not barred by the statute of non-claim, the adminis-
trator having published the notice required by that statute and been
discharged and the estate distributed before the cause of action ac-
crued as between the sureties upon their bond. Gibson v. Mitchell,
et als., 519.

6. The presentation of such claim to the discharged admiinstrator is of
no effect. Id.

7. After the discharge of an administrator by due course of law and the
distribution of the estate to the heirs, a suit in equity for contribu-
tion may be maintained against the heirs by a co-surety of the de-
cedent, whose claim arose after the discharge, to the extent of the
property or its value which came to the heirs. Id.

8. Such suit is not a suit against heirs upon the bond of the ancestor to
recover a personal judgment against them, but is in the nature of a
suit in rem to reach the property of the ancestor. The decision in
this case does not conflict with Gilchrist vs. Filyau, 2 Fla. R.. 94.
Id.

STATUTE OF NON-CLAIM. See Statute of Limitations, 5, 6, 7, 8.