
    
      Ross vs. Neal
    
    Caveat;
    Error to the Whitley Circuit; Joseph Eve, Judge;
    
      Statute. AffidaviU
    
    June 23.
    The aof of 1796, I. Dig; 208, requires the affidavit of the party applying for caveat: agent cannot make it.
   Judge Robertson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a caveat entered by Hiram Ross vs. John Neal.

The affidavit on which it was procured, was not fhade by Hiram, but by one Angus Ross, who called himself Hiram’s agent.

■The court dismissed the caveat, on the ground that it was “null and void,” for wa'nt of such an affidavit as the act of 1796, I. Dig. 208, requires.

We concur with the circuit court, that the letter and policy of the act of assembly require the affidavit of the party in whose name and for whose benefit the caueai shall be entered. Besides, there is no proof of the agency.

Triplett, for appellant; Cunningham, for appellee»

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed, with costs and damages.  