that he might convey and deliver her in accordance with
his original promise. Lemon vs. Wright.....
See Equity, 14. Gift, 3, 4.
See Landlord and Tenant, 1.
When the verdict is for an amount greater than the evi-
dence warrants, the excess must be remitted, or a new trial
will be granted. Loyd, Perryman & Mills vs. Hicks...... 140
The first verdict binds the party not appealing from it.
Pierce vs. Chapman.......
See Practice, 7. Wills, 1.
A party claiming title to property by deed of gift, is de-
nominated a volunteer, and a subsequent purchaser for a
valuable consideration, without notice of the voluntary con-
veyance, is preferred in Law to the volunteer; but if he had
notice before he purchased, the volunteer will be preferred
over him. Black et. al. vs. Thornton......
When one of the distributees of an estate consents to take
the portion of property allotted to him, though unequal in val-
ue, it is a waiver of any objection for want of a just division.
Desverges vs. Desverges.........
A general warranty of soundness does not extend to fu-
ture casualties of parturition. Hambright vs. Stover......... 300
1. The 9th item of testator's Will is as follows: "At my
death, I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Elizabeth
Boynton, during her life-time or widowhood, the West half
of my land, with a good horse and farming tools for one
horse; two cows and calves, and one year's provision for
the family, and household and kitchen furniture, sufficient
for the use of the family; one bed and bedstead, for the use
of the four younger children; and one cart and oxen, for the
use of the family; also, Solomon's labor is to go to raise
the children. When the youngest becomes of age, he shall
be the property of my wife, Elizabeth Boynton, and also
Floyd, a negro boy, and fifty dollars, for the use of the fam-
ily." The intended disposition as to Floyd being equivo-
cal, and parol testimony being let in to show what was the
intention. Held,
1. That the verdict of the Jury must be on the parol testi-
mony, and not upon the sense of the words of the Will.
Doyal et. al. vs. Smith et. al.........
See Separate Estate, 1. Title, 2.
1. Being an Attorney in the cause, does not render a witness
incompetent, he not having testified to any fact derived from
his client, or during the existence and by reason of the rela-
tion of client and Attorney. Sharmon vs. Morton.......
2. The Sheriff who sues a purchaser to recover a bid at Sher-
iff's sale, is an incompetent witness, unless indemnified
against the cost. Otherwise as to a Deputy Sheriff, who
neither made the sale, nor is a party to the suit.
Glenn vs Black et. al.......
3. On a motion to the Court to dismiss an action at Law, be-
cause no process had been annexed to the original petition,
and none appearing by inspection of the petition, the Clerk,
whose duty it was to annex the process, is an incompetent
witness to prove that that duty had been performed.
Ballard vs. Bancroft.....
Three persons being sued as partners on a promissory note,
igned by a firm name, and one of the three having pleaded
'non est factum," whilst the other two made default; one
of the two, so in default is incompetent on the score of in-
erest, as a witness, to prove the liability of the party plead-
ng non est factum. Cody vs. Cody et. al.......
The rule of Law is, that the credibility of a witness is a
natter to be determined by the Jury. Strozier vs. Carroll. 557
Where the object of a cross-examination is to show bias or
nterest so as to impeach the witness, great latitude ought
o be allowed by the Court, and questions if answered in
he affirmative that might tend in that way, is not objec
ionable. Floyd vs. Wallace.......
See Criminal Law, 9, 13, 24.
|