« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
the merits of the contract, the defendant cannot inquire in-
took fire, from the engine passing or standing near it, at the
1. That the Road had the right to have the wood pile at that
2. That it is error in the Court, after laying down the rule
3. To make the Road liable for the burning of the house,
REFORMATION OF DEEDS.
See Equity, 24.
See Action, 1.
See Criminal Law, 7.
1. A payment made by a debtor to one who is a merchant, on
a note then due to him, on the Sabbath day, is not such ac-
1 When goods are sold, and nothing is said as to the time of
delivery, or the time of payment, and every thing the sell-
pay the stipulated price, is equivalent to his accepting pos-
in the buyer, &c. lbid.
such that, whereas the said Zadock Ford has this day taken
firm debts which he had paid. Speer vs. Wilkins............ 289
which were charged articles as sold to defendant “per Pate"
See Equity, 1, 2. Contract, 1.
to my son-in-law, John Thrash, the sum of five dollars, and
possession, for her only use, and for the use of the lawful heirs of her body during life.” Held, That whatever interest the wife did take in the negroes under these clauses, was to her separate use, and to the exclusion of the husband, and that she was entitled, in an action of Trover, to recover against one holding the property (vested by the Will) under the husband, to the extent of that interest. Thrash vs. Hardy .....
1. No recovery can be had under the Statute in favor of a
plaintiff in execution, who negligently or covinously failed to place his execution in the Sheriff's hands, until after the sale, against a purchaser, himself a junior plaintiff in execution, who levied on the property, brought it to sale, ascertained what liens were in the Sheriff's hands-purchased only to secure his own debt, or a portion of it, and after the sale, offered to settle with the Sheriff, by paying off all fi. fas. in his hands, at the time of the sale, older than his own, ond by crediting the remainder on his own execution; nor in favor of any plaintiff, whose execution the purchaser of
fered to pay after the sale. Glenn vs. Black et. al........... 3 2. The provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1799, making it the
duty of a Sheriff to advertise his sale of property seized under execution, in three of the most public places in the county, has not been repealed by subsequent legislation, but is still of force, and if he neglects to perform this duty, and injury results therefrom, he is liable therefor, to the extent of the damages sustained. Johnson vs. Reese....
SURETIES AND INDORSERS.
Before a surety can be discharged on account of indulgence v obe given to the principal, the creditor must know that the sure
ty is such. Howell vs. Lawrenceville Manufacturing Co..... 663
. Does the remedy given by the Act of 26th December,
Bit See City Ordinances, 1.
mt. When lands of the United States in the State of Alabama thanesi are entered, and paid for to the officers appointed by Law mutz: for that purpose, the certificate given by the Receiver to the unts purchaser, (although no patent appears to have issued,) is o sufficient evidence of title to the land therein named in the
holder to enable him to sue for, recover and hold such land iking #: under the same, according to the laws of force in that State. ofte by Moore vs. Coulter...
Jare An exemplified copy (conforming to the provisions of the
lished, probated and recorded as a last Will and Testament
If a voluntary deed for slaves be signed, sealed and attest-
ing and attestation of the voluntary deed or not. And if there be doubt as to the time of the delivery, it is the province of the Jury to determine whether it occurred before or after the sale for value. Black et. al. vs. Horton........
4. B. made a deed of gift to a grand-child of a negro girl that
belonged at the time to himself, and subsequently sold and delivered the negro to one C. who bought with notice of the voluntary deed. The negro, many years afterwards, was found in the possession of one P., who purchased and held under G. On the trial of a suit, brought by the grand-child and her husband against P., there being no evidence to show that G. derived his title either from C., or the donee. Held. that P.'s title was not protected against the voluntary deed. by the fact that he purchased without notice—that this rule 1. only applies, when both parties derive title from the same person. Palmer vs. Clark and wife........
See Sale, 1, 2.
TROVER AND CONVERSION.
1. The defendant, against the consent of the plaintiff, employ.
ed a negro man belonging to the plaintiff, to cut timber for him. While so engaged, the negro received an injury from the fall of a tree, from which the negro, after being returned to the plaintiff, died. Held, for this defendant is liable, in Trover, for the negro. Tharp vs. Anderson.....
2. A., at the request of B. and his wife, purchased certain
slaves in the year 1841, and placed them in the possession of B., promising to convey said slaves in such manner as to secure them to the wife and children of B., whenever he should be reimbursed the purchase money and interest. In 1853, not having been reimbursed to any extent, A. conveyed two of said slaves to B., in trust for his wife and children, and one to a daughter of B. At the same time A. took one of the slaves home with him, leaving one undisposed of, in B.'s possession, as before. In 1859, A. made à demand of B. for that one, and, on refusal, commenced this action of Trover for that slave. Held, first, that the taking home of two of the slaves by A., in 1853, was no reimbursement under the original agreement, unless he so expressly stipulated at the time of taking them, and did not bar his right of action. Secondly, that, even if reimbursed, A. was entitled, at Law, to recover the slave, to the end