Page images
PDF
EPUB

5. A judgment at law unless reversed, is conclusive upon the

defendant in every other court, even as to matters of
defence which he might have presented but neglected
to introduce at the proper time, &c. Kenan & Rockwell
vs. Miller

329

6. The discretion of a judge refusing a motion to amend a

judgment after fourteen years acquiescence, will not be
controlled by the Supreme Court. Saffold vs. Keenan

344

JUDGMENT AT LAW.

1. When equity will not interfere with a judgment at law.

See title “ Equity.Stroup vs. Sullivan and Black
Kenan & Rockwell vs. Miller

281
329

JURISDICTION.

1. In cases of frauds, courts of law and courts of equity

have concurrent jurisdiction. The first of said courts
acquiring jurisdiction in such cases is entitled to retain
it. Trippe & Slade and others vs. Lowe's Admr. and
others

305

JURORS.

1. A juror is not disqualified who has formed an opinion

from mere rumour. Hudgins vs. The State

174

JURY.

1. When a cause shall be considered as submitted to a jury.

See title “ Nolle Prosequi.Newsom vs. The State

.

60

LETTERS TESTAMENTARY OR OF ADMINISTRATION.

1. When necessary to introduce letters testamentary or of

administration in evidence in trover by an executor or
administrator. See title “Evidence.Robinson vs. Mc-
Donald

119

LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS.

1. The law of the place where an endorsement is made,

governs as to its validity, discharge, &c. See title
Indorser." Cox vs. Adams

161

LEX FORI.

1. The law of the court where the suit is instituted governs

the remedy. See title “ Indorser." Ib.

161

LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS.

1. The statute of limitations does not run against the State.
Brinsfield vs. Carter

. 150

LIMITATION OF ESTATES.

1. Where the testator bequeathed certain negroes at his

mother's death to his son Robert, his heirs and assigns
forever, “but if Robert should live single, and die with-
out a lawful heir of his body, the above property is to be
equally divided between my three sons, James, John,
and Lovett," it was held to be a limitation over, upon an
indefinite failure of heirs or issue, and therefore void as
being too remote, according to the rules of the common
law, and vested the property in the first taker. Held
also, that if the bequest over had been good at common
law, our Statute of 1821 would have vested the property
in the first taker. Robinson vs. Mc Donald

120

2. If an estate is bequeathed to A in trust for B, during his

life, with power of appointment in B, of the fee by will,
and in the event of B dying intestate, remainder in fee
to the heirs at law of B, held that B having died with-
out exercising the power, it is void, and the limitation
over takes effect as though there was no such power in
the will. Edmondson and wife vs. Dyson

311

LIQUIDATED DEMAND.

! In order for a demand to be liquidated, it is not necessa-

ry that it should be in writing. Anderson and others vs.
The State

374

MANDAMUS.

1. The Supreme Court will not grant a mandamus against

a circuit judge, commanding him to certify a second bill
of exceptions for the same cause in the same case, the
first having been dismissed on the hearing for irregularity.
Harris vs. The State

291

MORTGAGE.

1. When a cestui que trust may make a valid mortgage of
the trust property.

See title Cestui

que

Trust."
Wayne, trustee and others vs. Myddleton and others

383

MULTIFARIOUSNESS.

1. A bill filed by the maker and sureties to certain promis-

sory notes, which were given to an administrator for
purchases at his sale, against one into whose possession
they were delivered by the payee who had absconded,
to indemnify him and also one of the complainants, who
were joint sureties on the administrator's bond for losses
sustained by them in that character to have said notes
cancelled upon averments that they were paid before
they were transferred, and that the defendant had insti-
tuted three suits upon them at law, the first of which
was dismissed, the second also dismissed after plea and
proof of payment, and the third still pending; and with
the further averments that the defendant had been fully
indemnified as surety on the bond from other sources,
with a demand that defendant answer the allegations,
and a special prayer that said notes be delivered up to
be cancelled, and a prayer for general relief, is a single
bill, and not demurrable for multifariousness. Butler
and others vs. Durham

418

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

MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, JUSTIFIABLE HOMI-

CIDE, &c.

1. The 12th section of the 4th division of the Penal Code,

specifying the case in which homicide is justifiable in
self-defence, does not apply to a single individual, but
contemplates the joint action of two or more persons.
Hudgins vs. The State -

182

NEW TRIAL.

1. An application for a new trial will not be granted on the

ground that the verdict is contrary to evidence, provided
there was testimony enough to warrant the finding, and
the court was satisfied that justice had been done.
Neither will the motion be sustained for the reason that
the verdict was contrary to the charge of the presiding
judge, if the charge itself was erroneous.

Peck vs.
Land

15

2. The Supreme Court will rarely, if ever, control the dis-

cretion of the circuit judge in granting or refusing a new
trial in a criminal case because the finding is contrary
to evidence, provided there was proof sufficient to war-
rant the verdict. Hudgins vs. The State

183

NOLLE PROSEQUI.

1. Under the 326th section of the 14th division of the Penal

Code, no entry of nolle prosequi shall be made after a case
is submitted to a jury, except by the consent of the de-
fendant. A case is submitted when the prisoner has
been arraigned, the plea of not guilty filed, and the
jury empaneled and sworn. Newsom vs. The State

60

NOTICE.

1. No notice of the signing of the bill of exceptions having

been filed in the clerk's office of the court below, case
will be dismissed. See title “ Writ of Error." Harris
vs. The State; Smith, admr. vs. Burn and McLendon

263

PARTIES.

1. Until there is a severance or destruction of a tenancy in

common, one or more of the co-tenants cannot bring
trover or trespass against the others. Leonard vs. Scar-
borough and wife et al. -

76

2. Where there has been a judgment entered up against

the securities on the appeal in the Court below, they
should be made parties plaintiffs to the writ of error;
and if they are not so made parties, the writ of error will
be dismissed. Dill and others vs. Jones

80

3. Uunder the Judiciary Act of 1799, where both plaintiff

and defendant die before scire facias has issued to make
parties, the action does not abate, but parties may be
made and the action proceed. Exr. af Henderson vs.
Alexander's Admr.

82

4. The security to the appeal bond in the Court below must

be made a party to the writ of error. Long and others
vs. Strickland
See also, Morris vs. Wiley, Parish & Co.

Carey vs. Rice
Coffee and others vs. Newsom

349
287
409
440

PARTNERS.

1. Where two or more persons enter into an agreement to

purchase cotton jointly, to advance equal portions of the
purchase money, to pay equal portions of the expense
of transportation of the same, and to share in the loss and
profits, it is in judgment of law a co-partnership for a
single adventure. Solomon vs. Solomon, Ex. •

26

2. Partners, as between themselves, may 'alter, modify, or

partially dissolve the co-partnership contract; provided
they do not violate any principle of law, or public poli-

cy. 18.

27

3. When one partner fraudulently misapplies any portion

of the partnership funds to his own private use with-

« PreviousContinue »