Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

the merits of the contract, the defendant cannot inquire in-
to the title for the single purpose of defeating a recovery.
Hambright vs. Stover......


1. A wood pile of the Macon & Western Railroad Company

took fire, from the engine passing or standing near it, at the
Jonesboro' Station, and the fire communicated from the
wood pile to the plaintiff's house and destroyed it. Held,

1. That the Road had the right to have the wood pile at that
Station, in such quantities and to such extent as its agents
or employees thought proper, &c.

2. That it is error in the Court, after laying down the rule
of defendant's liability correctly, to add a qualification that has
the effect of negativing such rule.

3. To make the Road liable for the burning of the house,
it must be shown affirmatively, that a fire originated from
some act of gross neglect, or carelessness on the part of its
agents or employees.
Macon and Western Railroad vs. McConnell........



See Equity, 24.


See Action, 1.


See Criminal Law, 7.


[ocr errors]

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-
knowledgement of the debt as from which the Law will pre-
sume a promise to pay sufficient to take the case out of
the Statute of Limitations. The transaction being in vio-
lation of the Law, no binding promise, either express or
implied, will be presumed therefrom, to prevent the statuto-
ry bar from attaching to the debt.
Dennis vs. Sharman et. al.......

.... 607
See Practice, 7.


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-
er has to do with them is complete, the property vests in
the buyer--the seller being bound to deliver them when-
ever they are demanded, upon the payment of the price-
the buyer having no right to the possession of the goods
till he pays the price. Allen rs. Hollis......

2. The assent of the vendee to take the specific chattel, and to

pay the stipulated price, is equivalent to his accepting pos-
session; and the effect of the contract is, to vest the chattel

in the buyer, &c. lbid.
3 “ The condition of the above and foregoing obligation is

such that, whereas the said Zadock Ford has this day taken
possession of the money, notes, accounts, books, goods, and
every thing belonging to the late firm of Ford & Speer,
and agrees to pay all the firm debts. Now, should the said
Zadock Ford pay all the demands, debts or claims against
said firm, or cause it to be done, and save the said Hugh L.
Speer harmless, then this bond to be null and void, other-
wise to remain in full force and virtue.” Held, 1st. That
this was a sale by Speer to Ford, and not an assignment in
trust. And 2d. That being a sale, Speer was a specialty
creditor only, and entitled to damages to the extent of the

firm debts which he had paid. Speer vs. Wilkins............ 289
4. The plaintiff brought suit against defendant on account, in

which were charged articles as sold to defendant “per Pate"
and “per" others. In proof of the account, plaintiff intro-
duced his book of original entries in evidence, and proved
that he kept correct books. Held, in the absence of proof
to the contrary, that the presumption was that the goods so
charged were sold to defendant. Chastain vs. Brown....... 346


See Equity, 1, 2. Contract, 1.

1. The 5th and 6th items of Testator's Will are: 5th, "I give

to my son-in-law, John Thrash, the sum of five dollars, and
no more, of my estate, both real and personal, for his full
share.” '6th. “I Will that my beloved daughter, Mary B.
Trash, that she shall keep the negroes she has now in her

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....


[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


[ocr errors]

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,
1826, to sureties and indorsers to compel suit on notes (by
giving notice,) to be brought within three months, or they
be discharged, affect the contract, or go only to the remedy?
Vanzant, Jones & Co. vs. Arnold, Hamilton & Johnson.. 210


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...


[ocr errors]

Jare An exemplified copy (conforming to the provisions of the
duto Act of Congress) of a testamentary paper, executed, pub-

lished, probated and recorded as a last Will and Testament
in the State of Maryland, may be a good muniment of title
to real estate in Georgia, even though the Will was neither
probated, nor recorded in this State.
Doe ex. dem. Doo'y vs. Roe de McCurley....


If a voluntary deed for slaves be signed, sealed and attest-
ed, but not then delivered by the donor to the donee, or to
any other person for him, and if, before the delivery of
such deed, a third person purchase said property from the
Sheriff who had levied on it as the property of the donor,
advertised and exposed it legally to public sale, or from the
grantor for a valuable consideration, such purchaser ac-
quires a legal title to the slaves, as against the volunteers
to whom the deed was delivered after such purchase, wheth-
er the purchaser had notice of such previous signing, seal-

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.


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

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »