1. Settlement for funds of county and State, jurisdiction, etc.
It is the duty of the clerk of the Circuit Court to render an account to that
court of all money received by him as such clerk for the use of the State
or county. And it is the province of the court to audit and adjust his
accounts, according to the records, dockets, papers, etc., of the court, and
to make and certify duplicate bills of the settlement to the County Court.
But if the Circuit Court neglects to require him to report during his term
of office, the County Court may, under its general jurisdiction, force him
to settle. Lee County vs. Abrahams.
571
It is the duty of the Circuit Clerk to pay the tax on original writs, execu-
tions, deeds, etc., to the County Collector; and he cannot set off allow-
ances made him by the County Court against the amount of such taxes in
his hands. Lee County vs. Govan.
See ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
Presumption as to foreign law.
In the absence of proof, the court presumes that the law of another State
gives to the acknowledgment and recording of mortgages, deeds of trust,
etc., the same effect as is given by the laws of this State. Hall v. Pillow.
32
See CONTRACT, 2. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, 4. RELEASE.
The waiver of a legal or equitable right is a sufficient consideration to sup-
port a promise. Where there is any consideration, the law will not in-
quire into its adequacy. Buckner vs. McIlroy.
See JUDICIAL SALES, 6. RAILROAD AID BONDS. RAILROAD COMPANIES, 5.
1. MUNICIPAL REGULATION: Contract, etc.
Section 20, of chapter 44, Gould's Digest, which provided that when a
county seat had been established for four years it should not be removed,
without the assessment by the County Court of a sufficient tax to pay the
lot owners for their lots and improvements, was a mere municipal regu-
lation, subject to repeal by the Legislature, and not a contract within the
meaning of section 10, article 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Moses et al. vs. Kearney, clerk, etc.
261
The right to bear arms-Constitutional provision.
The provisions of Article ii, of Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, guaranteeing to the citizens the right to keep and bear
arms, was not intended as a restraint on State legislation. Fife vs. The
State.
455
The provisions of Article ii, section 5, of the Constitution of this State, se-
curing to the citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their common
defense, relates to such arms as are used for purposes of war; and does not
prevent the Legislature from prohibiting the wearing of such weapons
as are not used in civiliz d warfare, and would not contribute to the com-
mon defense.
Id.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 3. CONTRACT, 1, 3, 5. CRIMINAL LAW, 3. HUS-
BAND AND WIFE, 3. PARTNERSHIP, 1. STATUTES, 1. WILL, 1. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
See DECREE, 1. NOTICE, 1, 2.
See BAILMENT, 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1.
EXEMPTION, 1. LIEN, 5, 7.
INFANTS, 3, 4. PARTNERSHIP, 1, 2. USURY, 2.
1. Construction, etc.
The vendors of real estate, against whom an action of ejectment was pend-
ing at the time of the sale thereof, conveyed the land to the vendee, with
general and special covenants of warranty. The vendees paid a part o
the purchase money, and executed their note for the residue, and the ven-
dors executed to them a bond reciting the sale, the payment, and the pen-
dency of the action of ejectment, and conditioned to become void if the
action should be finally determined in their favor; or, in case it should be
determined against them, if they should refund the purchase money so
paid them: Held, that the bond was designed merely as a security for
the cash payment in case the vendor's title should fail; and, as to the
deferred payment, that the vendees relied alone on the covenants con-
tained in the deed. Benjamin et al. vs. Hobbs.
An agreement to forbear proceedings is a valid consideration for a promise,
though the claim may be doubtful. Matthews vs. Morris.
3. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT.
A purchased land at tax sale, which was in the possession of B. The pe-
riod for redemption expired the 10th of June. In May, B requested A to
extend the time for redemption until the following fall, and told A if he
did not redeem by the 10th of June, he would be willing to pay rent for
the year, and thereupon was permitted to occupy the land: Held, that
B was bound, under the agreement, to pay A rent for the entire year. Id.
4. SUNDAY CONTRACT: By livery stable keeper.
A contract by a livery stable keeper to hire a horse on Sunday, for purposes
of business or pleasure, is void; otherwise, if it is for purposes of charity
or necessity, etc.
W. held a lien on personal property; S. represented to him that he had a
valid judgment, upon which execution had been issued, and levied on the
same property, and under which it would be sold, and promised, in con-
sideration that W. would release his lien in favor of I., that he would
pay the former $600 after the sale of the property under the execution.
The judgment proved to be invalid, and proceedings to enforce it were
enjoined: Held, that the agreement of S. amounted to an undertaking
that he would sell the goods before the return day of the execution, and
became an absolute promise to pay as soon as the sale was enjoined.
Buckner vs. McIlroy.
See PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, 1.
Forfeiture of franchise, plea of, etc.
An answer to an action by a corporation, that it had forfeited its charter by
non user, without averring that a forfeiture had been declared by judicial
proceedings for that purpose, is demurrable. West et al v. Carolina Life
Insurance Co.
Under the provisions of the act of February 25th, 1875, regulating costs, the
sheriff is not entitled to commissions for collecting, where the judgment
is compromised and settled after the levy of an execution. Gaff v. Hol-
land.
543
2. SECURITY FOR: Administrator not required to give.
An administrator is not an assignee within the meaning of sec. 911, Gantt's
Digest, which provides that every plaintiff, suing as an assignee, when
insolvent, with certain specified exceptions, may be required to give se-
curity for cost. Tucker, as adm'r v. West et al.
See COUNTY COURT, 1. GARNISHMENT 1.
The County Court is expressly prohibited from allowing any greater sum
against the county than is actually due, dollar for dollar. Goyne v. Ash-
ley County.
2. Settlement of Circuit Clerk for public funds—jurisdiction, etc.
If the Circuit Court neglects to require the Circuit Clerk to report the mon-
eys received by him as such clerk, for the use of the county and State, the
County Court may, under the general jurisdiction, force him to settle.
Lee County v. Abrahams.
3. Settlement of Recorder for public funds—-jurisdiction etc.
The County Court has jurisdiction to compel the recorder to settle and pay
over all funds received by him, for the use of the county.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1.
See INDICTMENT. PRACTICE 6.
1. Presumption of innocence.
The fact that a county judge erred in granting a liquor license, after a
majority of the electors of the township had voted against license at an
election held for the purpose of determining whether such license should
be granted or not, did not raise the presumption that he had acted cor-
ruptly. It was incumbent on the State to show from other facts and
circumstances, in connection with his errors, that he acted corruptly.
State v. Prescott.
2. Illegal search. Forcible entry of dwelling etc.
There is no statute in force in this State, expressly prohibiting the search of
a private dwelling without a warrant, and such search is not indictable
under the provisions of sec. 1995, Gantt's Digest: but one who enters a
dwelling house by force is indictable at common law. State v. Leathers.
3. Construction of the act prohibiting the carrying of weapons.
The act of February 16th, 1875, which prohibits the carrying of any pistol
whatever, as a weapon, refers to such pistols as are usually carried in the
pocket, and of a size to be concealed about the person, and used in pri-
vate quarrels; and not to such as are within the provisions of the Consti-
tution. Fife v. The State.
455
See PLEADING, 18, 20, 21.
See ATTACHMENT. INJUNCTION, 1. JURISDICTION, 4. RAILROAD COMPANIES, 5.
1. MEASURE OF: In trover.
The measure of damages in an action of trover, is the value of the property
at the time of its conversion. Jefferson v. Hale, adm'r.
: In an action for breach of promise of marriage.
An action for breach of a promise of marriage, embraces the injury to the
feelings and affections, as well as the loss of marriage, and the jury, in
estimating the damages, may take into consideration all the circum-
stances of the case. Collins v. Mack.
The damage, in an action for breach of a promise to marry, is not
to be measured by the wealth of the defendant; though evidence of
his rank and wealth may be pertinent to the issue, as illustrating the in-
jury sustained by the plaintiff by loss of the marriage.
Id
|