Page images


1. A party having at different times had two agents
appointed severally in the same business, upon a ques-
tion as to the extent of authority given to the second
agent, is not competent to prove the declarations of
the first agent, as to his own powers, whilst holding
the agency. Mapp vs. Phillips............................

2. Where an agent is confessedly acting under a power
of attorney, or written authority, his own declarations
enlarging his powers, are incompetent evidence to bind
his principal. Ibid.

3. If an agent having possession of his principal's prop-
erty for a specific purpose, sells it without authority,
and absconds with the money, ratification by the prin-
cipal will not be established by his declaration that if
he could get his money he would be satisfied. Ibid.
4. In such a case, three months' forbearance to sue the
purchaser for the property so illegally sold, will not,
alone, amount to such acquiescence as will establish
ratification. Ibid.

See Charge of the Court, 11; Infants, Title 3, 4.

AGREEMENT. See Equity, 11, 13.

AMENDMENT. See Equity, 10.

APPEAL. See Statute of Limitations, 4.


It is the right of any white man to arrest a slave on the
public highway, upon a reasonable suspicion that the
slave has in possession stolen property, and the negro
has no right to resist such arrest. Monday, a slave, vs.
The State......

An assault with intent to murder may be committed
without the use of weapons likely to produce death.
Monday, a slave, vs. The State....


ASSIGNEE. See Judgment, 2.

ASSIGNMENT. See Equity. 13.



... 672


1. It is error to dismiss an attachment on the ground
that the sum sworn to is greater than that proved to
be due on the trial. Brewer vs. Ainsworth.............. 487
2. Under the attachment law of 1856, an attachment
may be made returnable to the next term of the Supe-
rior or Inferior Court, at the option of the party suing
out the same: Provided, the term of the Court to
which the attachment is made returnable, does not
commence within twenty days next after the issuing
of the attachment. Duke, Ex'r, vs. Horton.....
See Claim and Claim Laws, 1, 2, 3; Debtor and Credi-
tor, 2; Trusts and Trustees, 5.


Testimony of a witness, taken by interrogatories, is not
obnoxious to the Act of 21st February, 1850, "To
regulate the testimony of attorneys at law," when it
does not appear to the Court that the witness was the
attorney at law of the party against whom the evi-
dence is sought to be used, or that the facts testified
to were acquired by him during the existence, and by
reason of the relation of attorney and client. Mont-
gomery and another vs. Morris..

Attorneys at Law adjudged liable for costs in a certain
case. Ross vs. Harvey & Scott....
See Interrogatories, 2.





1. The Act of 1857, authorizing bail process against the
maker of a promissory note, at the instance of the
security or endorser, is inapplicable to suits pending
at the time the affidavit is made. Redding vs. Price.. 178
2. A bail bond conditioned that the principal "shall
well and truly pay the condemnation of the Court, or
surrender his body to prison in execution of the same,
in terms of the law, and upon failure thereof, the
security will do it for him," is a good and valid bond.
Phillips vs. Parnell and another......



A direction from the owner to the employer of a slave
to keep him at a particular place during the night, to
be binding, must have been a part of the contract of
hiring, and that it should be enforced by compulsory
confinement, or that he was absent from the place
indicated by the consent of the employer. Man vs.
M. & W. R. R. Co........


See Promissory Notes, 4; Verdict, 4.

BILL OF SALE. See Evidence, 15.


1. If an inland bill of exchange shall have been accept-
ed, and noted and protested for non-payment, and then
lost, a copy of it, attempted to be established under
the Act of 5th March, 1856, in order to make it evi-
dence against the drawer, in an action brought under
the provisions of that act, must have been so estab-
lished as to bind the acceptors also. Bond vs. Whit-



2. M., as one of the heirs-at-law of A., deceased, drew
an order in favor of D. on V., the administrator of
A., for $80 00, dated 10th May, 1862. V. accepted
the order, and promised to pay the money when it was
collected. Suit was brought against V., on this accept-
ance in 1858: Held, That ample time had been
allowed for the collection, and that the plaintiff was
entitled to recover. Vaughan, Adm'r, Dean......... 502
See Evidence, 28.


See Claim and Claim Laws, 4, 7; Ejectment.


See Bail, 2; Claim and Claim Laws, 1, 3, 4, 7.


1. A state of facts detailed, upon which it was held not
to be error in the Court to charge the jury, that if
that evidence satisfied them that the grantor named,
had made a deed as described to the grantee named,
they were authorized to find that the title passed from
the former to the latter. Roe & McDowell vs. Doe, ex

2. A case stated in which it was held to be error in the
Court to charge the jury, after having put the inven-
tory of choses in action in evidence, the complainant
must "go farther, and show the money due upon
those choses in action to have been collected or col-
lectable." Smith vs. Griffin....

[ocr errors]

3. In such a case it is error in the Court to charge the
jury that the returns of the defendant, having been
allowed by the Court of Ordinary, and thus adjudged
by a court of competent jurisdiction, are prima facie
evidence for the defendant, and will be conclusive,
unless reversed or impeached for fraud or other cause.'
Returns made by an executor or administrator appear-
ing, upon inspection, to have been made contrary to
law, or to be fraudulent, do not make a prima facie
case for him, and are to be taken strongly against
him. Ibid.

4. In a case arising between a volunteer and a subse-
quent purchaser for value, without notice, it is not
error in the Court to charge the jury that the subse-
quent sale of the property was a circumstance to be
considered by them in determining whether or not
the voluntary deed was made with intent to defraud.
Howard et al., vs. Snelling........

5. Nor was it error in the Court to charge that that cir-
cumstance is not conclusive, but that it may be rebutted
by evidence showing that the voluntary conveyance
was bona fide. Ibid.

6. It is error in the Court to assume in its charge to the
jury, that an important fact in the case has or has not
been proven, especially where the evidence is doubt-
ful. Roberts and another vs. Mansfield.......
7. On the trial of an indictment for carrying weapons
in violation of law, the Judge charged the jury, "that





if the defendant carried the pistol, with only the butt
exposed to view, and the barrel concealed, this was
not carrying it in an open manner, and fully exposed to
view, and they would be authorized to find him guilty:"
Held, that this charge was erroneous. The charge
should have been, "that if the defendant carried the
pistol, so exposed to view, that it could readily be
seen and recognized as a pistol, by one having his per-
son in view, he carried it, in legal contemplation, in
an open manner, and fully exposed to view; but if it
were so far concealed, though partially exposed, that
it could not be readily seen and recognized as a pistol,
it was carried in a manner forbidden by the statute,
and the defendant was guilty." Killet vs. The State.. 292
8. A charge of the Court on adverse possession, that
"if S. (under whom the tenants hold) took possession
of a portion of the lot of land in good faith under
his bond for titles, and was using it as his own, and
cultivating it as his own, making such improvements
as he conveniently could, this would make his posses-
sion adverse. If you find the seven years adverse
possession in favor of defendants, you should render
a verdict in their favor," such charge is erroneous,
being too general and indefinite. The charge should
have been, that if S. went into the actual possession
of any part of the lot in controversy under the bond
for titles from Asher, and he, together with defendant,
if they went in under him, remained in the actual,
open and notorious possession of the lot, continuous-
ly, uninterruptedly and adversely for the space of seven
years, previously to the commencement of the suit, that
then the plaintiff could not recover. Doe & McGee
vs. Guthrie & Powell.......

9. T. J. Asher, on 28th November, sold a lot of land
to Jesse H. Stansell, and made a bond for titles. On
29th September, 1857, Asher made his deed to Stan-
sell for the lot, and Stansell, in October, 1857, sold
and conveyed to defendants. Stansell and defendants,
under this title, took and held possession of the lot.
Henry H. McGee, on the 9th January, 1851, sold the
same lot to one Hardy C. Tatum, and gave his bond
for titles. Henry H. McGee had no title to the land,
but the title was in one Dorcas McGee, the widow
and heir-at-law of Thomas McGee, the drawer and
grantee of said estate. Dorcas McGee, the true owner
of the land at the time, on the 10th February, 1855,


« PreviousContinue »