first day of the next succeeding term of
the court.
Idem, 427

CHAMPERTY.

A contract by attorneys with their
clients that they "shall have ten per
cent. on whatever might be recovered
in a certain chancery suit, commenced
by them in 1834, for their services in
the prosecution of it; and if nothing
were recovered in it, then no compensa-
tion for their said services, in attending
before the commissioners to take ac-
counts, or in court, or in taking deposi-
tions" in the same. HELD:

1. Such a contract is not champertous
or of immoral tendency.
Major's ex'or v. Gibson, 48

2. It is not such an one as is forbid-
den by the act in 1 R. C. 1819, ch. 76,
14, 15, pp. 270-1; for it comprehends
services not embraced by that act-such
as taking depositions, appearing before
commissioners, &c.
Idem, 48

3. Without that act, or for services
not enumerated in it, counsel might re-
Idem, 48
cover on a quantum meruit.

4. QUERE: Could the act be taken ad-
vantage of, unless specially pleaded, any
more than the act of limitations, bank-
ruptcy, &c.? (Per Tyler, J.) Idem, 48

CHOSE IN ACTION.

husband, that his dealings with the
firms of T P & Co and J K B & Co, of
which the obligee was a member, should
be set off against the bond, is waived
by the defendant's counsel, and there is
a judgment for the plaintiff.

HELD: Upon a proceeding in equity,
by the obligor in his own right, and as
administrator of the husband, to enjoin
offsets, if valid, constituted a legal de-
the execution of the judgment, that the
fence, and no sufficient excuse having
been shown for failing to make the de-
fence at law, equity will not interfere.

Idem, 141

not being a party to the action at law,

4. The fact of J C's administrator

does not entitle him to the aid of a
court of equity to enjoin the judgment.
Idem, 141

5. QUERE: (Per Thomspon, J.) Whe-
ther the bond having been taken in the
name of the wife, the obligor is not es-
topped to enquire into the considera-
tion, and to deny that the consideration
moved from the wife.
See Provision, and

Sherrard et als. v. Carlisle, 12

CIRCUIT COURTS.

Even if the bill or petition, or other
proceedings in the Circuit Court be ir-
regular, no objection can be taken to
them in an appellate court, if not taken
in the court below.

Sherrard et als. v. Carlisle, 12

COMMISSIONER'S REPORT.

See Provision, and

Sherrard et als. v. Carlisle, 12
COMMITTEE.

See Lunatic, and

Ashby v. Harrison's Committee, 1
Edmunds v. Venable,
121

CONTRACTS.

1. A court of equity, upon the ap-
plication of the grantor, will not inter-
fere to set aside a conveyance made to
hinder, delay, and defraud creditors,
on the ground of natural weakness of
mind, evinced by habits of intoxication
of the grantor, if he had legal capacity

1. The proper measure of damages
in an action on a bond, to indemnify a
sheriff for the sale of property, seized
under execution, is the actual value of
the property seized and sold, with in-
terest in the way of damages, on the
amount of the value, from the day fixed
on by the jury, as the time at which the
property is to be valued, until the time
of the trial.

Crump v. Ficklin for Guthrie, 201

2. The relator has a right to recover
in damages the value of the property,
either at the date of the seizure, or
that of the sale, or at any intermediate
time between the two, with interest as
aforesaid.
Idem, 201

3. For the mere seizure of the pro-
perty, (where a sale ensues,) the dama-
ges ought to be nominal only.

DECREES.

Idem, 201

DEEDS.

1. A court of equity, upon the appli-
cation of the grantor, will not interfere
to set aside a conveyance, made to hin-
der, delay, and defraud creditors, on
the ground of the natural weakness of
mind, increased by habits of intoxica-
tion, of the grantor, if he had legal
capacity to contract, unless it be shown
that some advantage was taken, or un-
due influence exerted, to procure the
conveyance.

Smith v. Elliott's adm'r, 307

2. In the application of the maxim,
in pari dilicto melior est conditio defen-
dentis, a court of equity will not con-
sider the relative moral guilt of the
their understandings, but in order to
parties, depending upon the strength of
entitle either party to relief, it must be
shown that there was some fraud or
undue influence, so that the party did
not exercise a free and intelligent will
in assenting to the contract.

Idem, 307
DELINQUENT STOCKHOLDERS.

1. Internal improvement companies,
which have the right to sell the stock of
shareholders for delinquencies in the
payment of installments called for by
them, are not obliged to sell at the first
failure to pay an installment, but may
wait until delinquencies have occurred
on them all, and may sell the stock,
and hold the stockholder liable for the
amount of any loss that may result to
the company, with interest on the in-

1. A obtains advances from B & C, his
millers, to pay off judgments against him-
self, upon which executions had issued,
B & C taking an assignment of one of the
judgments to themselves. These ad-
vances were obtained on A's crop of
wheat, to be thereafter delivered. B
& C afterwards made further advances
of money and produce to A on the same
account. After the wheat was deliv-
ered by A, and before any settlement of
the accounts between them, B & C sued
out execution on the judgment assigned
to them against A.

HELD: An injunction lies to restrain
the execution of the judgment until a
settlement of the accounts between A
and his millers can be had before a com-
missioner, and upon such account being
returned, the injunction should be dis-
solved in whole or in part, or perpetua-
ted, according to the result of such ac-
count.
Isler v. Willis, 43

1. In a writ of right, where the mise
is joined upon the mere right, if no ac-
tual seizin by the demandants is proved,
the tenants may give in evidence an
elder patent than that under which the
demandants claim, with which the title
of the tenants is in no way connected,
to show a better outstanding title in a
third person, which is evidence to be
weighed by the jury, but not conclusive
against the demandants. (Dawson v.
Watkins, 2 Rob. 259-accord.)

Breathed et al. v. Smith et al. 301

2. On the trial of the mise joined on
the mere right in a writ of right, the
record of a proceeding of unlawful en-
try and detainer between the same par-
ties, in which the tenents were plain-
tiffs and the demandants were defend-
ants, is admissible evidence to show
that the tenants were out of possession
at some time within three years before
the commencement of the proceeding.

Idem, 301

3. Upon a proceeding in equity to
perpetuate testimony, on the ground
that the complainant has no present
right to institute suit, it is irregular to
take depositions after the subpoena is
issued, and before the bill is filed, and
without an order of court.

Smith v. Grosjean, 109
4. When a decree is admissible evi-
dence.

Edmunds v. Venable et als. 121
5. The question of due diligence in
serving notice of dishonor of a bill of
exchange is a question of law for the
court, and not a question of fact for
the jury. Early v. Preston, 228

6. What the court will not take judi-
cial notice of, in an action on a bill of
exchange, but will require to be proved.
Idem, 228

3. A person, receiving from the com-
mittee of a lunatic bonds, showing on
their face that they belong to the estate
of the lunatic, is bound to account in
equity to the estate of the lunatic for
what he has received for them, although
he may have paid for them their full
value, and knew nothing of the state of
the committee's accounts.

Edmunds v. Venable, 121

4. Persons dealing with the commit-
tee of a lunatic or other fiduciaries,

knowing them to be acting as such,
cannot defend themselves from the con-
sequences of such dealings, by impeach-
ing the regularity of the appointment
of such fiduciaries.
Idem, 121

5. The vendee of a bona fide pur-
chaser, without notice of property ob-
tained by fraud, is entitled to hold the
property against the original owner,
whether he had or had not notice of the
Montgomery v. Rose,

fraud.

6. See Trusts and Trus.ees, and
Turner v. Campbell et als.

HOTCHPOT.

See Pretermitted child, and
Wilson and wife v. Miller et als.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

5

256

353