Ackles et al. v. Seekright et al.
Seekright on the demise of the heirs of Lunceford sued Ackles and others in an action of ejectment. The circuit court ruled for Seekright. The Supreme Court addressed four errors presented for judgment reversal. First, Lunceford's will's attestation by two witnesses, one being a devisee, did not violate applicable law requiring three subscribing witnesses. Second, the will's proof adhered to legal requirements. Third, the contention that Lunceford's interest was void due to Rebecca McCann's fee simple estate was dismissed, citing legal precedents supporting the executory devise. Finally, the death of Lunceford before the contingency did not nullify his interest, confirming its transmissibility to his heirs. The court affirmed the judgment.
Abbott et al. v. Semple
Semple filed an assumpsit lawsuit against Abbott and Lemon for a promissory note. Abbott was served, Lemon wasn't found. At a special court term, defendants' motion to quash the writ were overruled, leading to a default judgment. Abbott and Lemon appealed, arguing lack of proper summons for Lemon. Court ruled both defendants appeared through their attorneys, making Lemon's absence irrelevant. The judgment was upheld, emphasizing that appearing for any purpose constitutes a general appearance, affirming the lower court's decision