Page images
PDF
EPUB

DIVORCE..

1. The only causes for total divorce in Georgia are those
recognised by the common law, to wit, pre-contract,
consanguinity, affinity and corporeal infirmity. Head
vs. Head

2. And the only causes recognised in Georgia, for a partial
divorce, are those of the common law, to wit, adultery
and cruel treatment.

Ib.

DORMANT JUDGMENTS AND EXECUTIONS.

1. Under the Acts of 1822 and 1823, to prevent the fraudu-
lent enforcement of dormant judgments and executions,
a return must be made by the proper officer on such
execution every seven years, or it will be presumed to
have been satisfied and fraudulently kept open. Booth
vs. Williams

191

205

[ocr errors]

253

EQUITY.

1. When a court of chancery will appoint a guardian ad
litem to an infant plaintiff. See title "Guardian ad
litem." Leonard vs. Scarborough and wife and others

[ocr errors]

2. A party having elected to proceed at law, equity will
not interpose until he has pushed his remedy to every
available extent : neither will a court of chancery antic-
ipate, that the legal redress may not prove effectual.
McGough & Crews vs. The Insurance Bank and Mc-
Dougald

3. The garnishment acts of this State, may not, either in
express terms or by fair implication, have ousted chan-
cery of its previous jurisdiction over the same subject
matter; still if a bill were filed, it would be demurrable
upon the ground that there was an ample remedy at
law, unless there was something peculiar in the circum-
stances of the case. Ib.

4. A charge in a creditor's bill, that he fears, that his debtor

76

153

154

if he gets possession of funds, which he is proceeding to
collect under execution, will apply them to the payment
of other liens having no priority over his own, will not
justify the interposition of a court of chancery. He
must state the ground of his fears, or allege some issuable
fact, such as a fraudulent combination between his
debtor and other creditors, to entitle him to relief. Ib.

5. In this State, a verdict for the defendant in an equity
cause on the first trial thereof, does not operate as a
dissolution of the injunction granted therein, as a matter
of course, when an appeal is entered from such verdict
in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1843.
Neisler and others vs. Smith

6. A court of equity will not grant relief against a judg-
ment at law, on the ground of its being unconscientious,
unless the defendant in the judgment was entirely ig
norant of his defence pending the suit, or unless with-
out any default or neglect on his part, he was prevented
by fraud, or accident, or the act of the opposite party,
from availing himself of his defence, or by some unavoid-
able necessity. Stroup vs. Sullivan and Black -

7. In cases of fraud (with the exception of fraud in obtain-
ing a will,) courts of equity and courts of law have
concurrent jurisdiction, and the court which first ac-
quires jurisdiction is entitled to retain it.
Slade and others vs. Lowe's admr. and others

Trippe &

8. Where a bill was filed by judgment creditors to set
aside a conveyance as fraudulent, it was held, a court of
equity had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the creditors
might have sued the donee as executor de son tort, after
the death of the donor.

Ib.

9. To a bill for relief and injunction against plaintiffs in
execution, issuing upon a common law judgment, their
attorneys, against whom no fraud is charged nor relief
sought, ought not to be made parties. Kenan & Rock-
well vs. Miller

[ocr errors]

154

267

279

305

306

[ocr errors]

328

10. If a complainant in equity has been before a competent
tribunal at law which has given judgment against him,
that judgment, unless reversed, is conclusive upon him
in the other forum, even as to matters of defence which
he might have presented, but neglected to introduce at
the proper time; and that too, notwithstanding the de-
cision disallowing his plea was erroneous.

Ib.

11. Multifariousness defined. See title "Multifariousness."
Butler and others vs. Durham

[ocr errors]

12. Where there is a special prayer and a general prayer,
the complainant under the general prayer may have
such other relief only, as is consistent with the case
made in the bill and with the special prayer. Ib.

13. Equity has jurisdiction to direct the cancellation of
deeds and other instruments, which are functus officio by
payment or other cause, but will exercise it only in its
sound discretion, in cases where the defence at law is
not adequate, by reason of loss of testimony, lapse of
time, or something peculiar to the case. lb. -

14. A court of equity will retain a bill, at the instance of the
vendee of lands, to rescind the contract, notwithstand-
ing he had not been evicted from the possession of the
premises, nor had abandoned the possession thereof,
nor had offered to do so. Coffee and others vs. Newsom,
Executor

329

419

420

420

460

EVICTION.

1. When a court of equity will retain a bill to rescind a
contract at the instance of the vendee of lands without
his eviction first from the premises. See title "Fraud.”
Coffee and others vs. Newsom, Executor

EVIDENCE.

1. The declaration and other original papers of file in the
clerk's office, may be used in evidence in the same
court to which they belong. Peck vs. Land

460

[ocr errors]

15

2. When party not bound by his acknowledgment or ad-
mission. See title "Admissions." Solomon vs. Solomon,
Ex. &c.

3. The Act of 1802, prohibiting the Judges of the Su-
perior Courts from withholding any grant, deed or other
document from the jury, unless barred by the act of
limitations, does not repeal the law of evidence as to the
execution of such papers, nor prevent the judges from
pronouncing upon their legal character. The only effect
which it has is to prevent them from withholding from
the jury, papers whose legal character is admitted or ad-
judged by the court, and are legally proven. Hester,
Executor vs. Young

4. A testamentary paper cannot be read to the jury in any
case affecting the title to personalty in a court of com-
mon law, until it has passed to probate before the Ordi-
nary. Hester, Executor vs. Young

5. The news-paper itself is the best evidence of any arti-
cle, which has been published in its columns. Bond vs.
The Central Bank

6. In an action of trover by an executor or administrator,
who declares on his own constructive possession, and al-
leges the conversion after the death of the testator or in-
testate, it is necessary for him to introduce in evidence
his letters testamentary or of administration, on the trial,
as a part of his title to enable him to recover. Robinson
vs. McDonald

[ocr errors]

7. What shall be sufficient evidence of conversion, in the
absence of proof of demand and refusal, to render the
defendant in trover liable. See title "Trover." Ib.

8. The plaintiff is not required to produce evidence to ex-
plain any alteration in the instrument sued on, where it
is declared upon, as altered, unless the same is denied by
the defendant on oath, in his answer. Tedlie vs. Dill

9. When the question is, whether a homicide is felonious

30

42

44

107

119

119

131

or justifiable, the opinion of a witness, as to the intention
of the deceased in approaching the prisoner, is not evi-
dence: Aliter as to any information which the witness
may have communicated, whether true or false. Hudg
ins vs. The State

10. Parol evidence admissible to show whether Justices of
the Iuferior Court, signing a note with the addition of
the initials J. I. C. to their names, made the contract
upon which the note was given in their individual or offi-
cial character as agents of the public. Ghent and others
vs. Adams

181

217

11. The admissions of one member of a firm, who is not a
party to the suit, when the court is satisfied that the part-
nership has been established, may be given in evidence to
charge the other members, but not otherwise. Mc-
Cutchin vs. Bankston

245

12. Trusts in personal property may be created and proven,
by parol declarations. Kirkpatrick, guardian vs. David-

son

299

13. The record is the only legal evidence of the discharge
of bail upon the surrender of his principal during the
session of the court. Griffin vs. Moore

334

14. Parol evidence is inadmissible to prove the cause of
taking a recognisance. The offence must be specified
in the recognisance itself. Nicholson vs. The State

366

of

15. The court will not permit evidence aliunde the record
certified to this court, to be received for the purpose
showing an appeal bond was given, and who the secu-
rity was, but if the record is not complete, the party sug-
gesting a diminution thereof, has his remedy under the
XVIIIth rule of this court. Coffee and others vs. Newsom,
Executor

440

EXECUTION.

1. If an execution is paid by the justice of the peace, or

« PreviousContinue »