« PreviousContinue »
with the act regulating the collection of witnesses'
fees in criminal cases. Gilliam vs. The State........... 111
2. In such case, when the defendant offers no proof in
support of the grounds taken in his issue tendered, a
verdict of the jury is unnecessary; the Court should
withdraw the issue, and order the judgment to be en-
3. A party in possession of papers pertinent to the issue
of a case on trial, may be required to produce them
to be used as evidence. Boatright vs. Heirs of Porter 130
4. Under the Act of 1847, compelling discoveries at
common law, and the statutes amendatory thereof,
when interrogatories are filed for the opposite party,
and they fail to answer, the Court may attach the
party who is in default, continue the case, or non-suit
the plaintiff, or strike out the defendant's plea, accord-
ing to the circumstances: Held, that it is discretion-
ary with the Court to continue the case generally, or
charge it to the party in default; and that the discre-
tion of the Court in this, as well as all other cases,
will be controlled wherever it is flagrantly abused.
Heirs of Lucas vs. Tarver......
5. It is not error in the presiding Judge to refuse to
rule out answers to cross-interrogatories, when objected
to, on the ground that the answers are not full, es-
pecially when the cross interrogatories relate to an
immaterial matter. Jackson and another vs. Jackson
See Equity, 10; Evidence, 1, 2, 5; Foreign Executor ;
Garnishment, 2; New Trial, 19; Non-Suit.
PRACTICE IN SUPREME COURT.
See Costs, 2; Equity, 19; Judgment, 3, 4; Practice in
Superior Court, 4.
1. When D. & H. entered into a copartnership in a
brick yard, D. giving H. his note for a portion of the
brick then on hand, his share of the rent of the yard
for three years, and the brick to be made thereon, and
they dissolve at the end of eleven months, D. having
paid a part of the note in the meantime, and the
former partners specify minutely what each is to do,
in settling up the business, and no reference is made
to the note, the presumption is that D. is bound to
pay the balance due thereon. Durham vs. Hartlett.. 22
2. The transferee of a promissory note, payable one day
after date, to which, on suit brought, a plea of failure
of want of consideration is interposed, is not, in the
absence of all proof on the subject, entitled to the
benefit of the presumption that he took the note before
due, and without notice; such holder does not occupy
the position of an innocent purchaser. Beall vs. Lev-
See Contract, 2; Evidence, 16; Gift; Voluntary Convey-
1. The transferree of promissory notes, payable one
day after date, to which, on suit brought, a plea of
failure of want of consideration is interposed, is not,
in the absence of all proof on the subject, entitled to
the benefit of the presumption that he took the note
before due, and without notice; such holder does not
occupy the position of an innocent purchaser. Beall
2. M. agreed with M. for the purchase of her land and
negroes at the price of $8,000 00, executed a bill of
sale to him for the negroes, and delivered to him her
title deeds for the land, retaining possession of the
property until the purchase-price of the property was
settled; subsequently, to induce M. to cancel the trade,
give up the bill of sale to the negroes, and the title
deeds to the land, M., the vendor, and another, exe-
cuted to M., the purchaser, their notes for the sum of
$450 00, and the bill of sale and deeds were returned
to M., and the trade cancelled: Held, that this was
a sufficient consideration for the notes so given, al-
though the bill of sale and deeds might have been
fraudulently obtained in the first place. Montgomery
and another vs. Morris.......
3. S. and J. indorse to M. certain promissory notes, "to
be liable in the second instance." The maker of the
notes resides out of the State at the time of the in-
dorsement. M., after having sued the maker to in-
solvency, in another State, brings suit against the
indorsers, within six years after the return of nulla
bona against the maker, though not within six years
after the date of the indorsement: Held, that the
action against the indorsers was not barred by the
statute of limitations. Stocks and another vs. Mancas. 380
4. A note, given by the reputed father of a bastard.
child to the mother, to do something for her and to
prevent her from instituting a proceeding of bastardy
against him under the statute, is founded on a good
consideration, and is valid and recoverable. Hays,
administrator, vs. McFarlan......
See Bail, 1; Claim and Claim Laws, 4; Mortgages;
Statute of Limitations, 1, 3.
If a negro be hired to a railroad for a particular service,
and he is used by the road for a different purpose or
service from that intended, and an accident happens
to him in the performance of such service, that causes
his death, the road is liable to the owner for his value.
Most especially is this so, when such accident results
from the gross neglect and mismanagement on the
part of the employees of the road. Lewis, Superin-
tendent vs. McAfee........
See Action, 1; Charge of the Court, 19; Charter.
RECEIVER. See Equity, 19.
1 If the recognizance recites the offense substantially
for which the offender is arrested, it is not necessary to
designate it by name. Hampton vs. Brown, Govern-
2. The death of the principal in a recognizance to ap-
pear and answer a criminal prosecution, occurring af-
ter the forfeiture of the recognizance, but before judg-
ment thereon, exonerates the securities. The State vs.
Cone, et al........
REFORMATION OF CONTRACTS.
See Equity, 23; Parties, 2.
1. The registration of such conveyances only as are
required by law to be recorded, operates as construc-
tive notice to subsequent purchasers of the same prop-
erty so conveyed. Williams vs. Logan & Meara...... 165
2. A deed is improperly admitted to record on the pro-
bate of a subscribing witness, who simply states that
he saw the feoffer "assign the deed for the purposes
therein mentioned; also, he assigned the same as a
subscribing witness." Allen vs. Holden
3. A deed not recorded within twelve months from the
date of its execution, will not take precedence of
another title from the same vendor, based upon a bond
for titles, and the payment of the purchase, of which
the feoffee in the deed had notice. Ibid.
4. The statute of 5th March, 1856, which permits the
contents of the record of an original deed or other
instrument, in writing, that has been lost or destroyed,
and which had been recorded, and the record des-
troyed by fire, to be given in evidence by any one
who has read the record thereof, applies to those deeds
and instruments that are, by law, authorized and
required to be recorded. Gill vs. Strozier............. 688
See Marriage Settlements.
RENT. See Pleas and Pleading.
RES GESTÆ. See Evidence, 20, 25, 33.
The legislature passed an Act on the 17th of December,
1859, conferring upon the Mayor and Councilmen of
the city of Cuthbert, the power to regulate the retail
of spirituous liquors. C. took out a county license
from the Clerk of the Inferior Court to retail within
the corporate limits of said city, on the 31st of Decem-
ber, 1859: Held, that C. was subject to the ordinance
passed by the municipal authorities subsequent to the
date of his license. Mayor, etc., of Cuthbert, vs. Con-
RETAIL LICENSE. See Retailers.
REVOCATION. See Deed of Gift, 4.
1. Upon the petition of sundry citizens, and the report
of Reviewers duly appointed, the Inferior Court estab-
lished a public road-two other citizens complained,
that they were damaged by reason of the road running
through their lands—a general order was passed, direct-
ing the sheriff to summon a jury of freeholders, to as-
sess the damages in terms of the law-the jury was
summoned and empannelled, but failing to agree, were
discharged-the sheriff, without other or further order,
summoned a second jury, who, being impannelled, as-
sessed the damages: Held, that the proceeding was
legal and proper. Hicks, et al., vs. Foster and
The prisoner being confined in jail with a number of
others, in different cells, having effected his escape
from his cell into the body of the jail, broke the locks
of the doors of the others, and when the jailor made
his appearance, a number of them rushed upon, seized,
blindfolded, and robbed him. On these facts, all the
prisoners are guilty of the robbery, though it did not
appear affirmatively that the prisoner personally par-
ticipated in the act of the robbery, nor in fact who did
commit the robbery. The presumption being that
the robbery was the common intent of all. Had the
facts shown that an escape from the jail was the com-
mon intent, and that the robbery formed no part of the
original design, but was an independent act by some
others of the party, in which prisoner did not partici-
pate, the case might have been different. Ferguson
vs. The State......
RULE. See Officer. Sheriff, 2.
SALE. See Conditional Sale.
1. A charge created upon her separate estate, by a mar-
ried woman, which may be enforced in equity, is a