In these latter cases equity may by decree compel husband to make provision for support of wife and children. Gray Bros. et al. vs. Gray, 193.

5. Voluntary marriage would not exempt married woman from the running of a prescription which began when she was a feme sole. Sparks vs. Roberts, 571.

6. Married woman's act of 1866, the constitution of 1868, and the act of 1872, enable married women to sue, and prescriptions previously suspended then began running against them. Ibid. 7. Sale to wife on her own credit, not binding on husband, though seller expected her to get money from husband to pay for them. Morris vs. Root, 686.

ILLEGALITY.

1. Question settled by verdict cannot be raised by affidavit of illegality. Saulsbury, Respess & Co. vs. Blandys, 45.

2. Affidavit by widow, on ground that execution was levied on the homestead set apart to her husband, not demurrable because it failed to state that plaintiff in fi. fa. had not filed affidavit that his claim belonged to class of debts for which homestead was liable. Buchanan vs. Willingham, 303.

3. Levy of executions does not state as whose property seizure is made, no ground of illegality. McKay vs. Edwards, 328. 4. Levy on land, illegality thereto, based on falsity, of return of "no personal property to be found," insufficient to allege that defendant had personal property; it must be distinctly averred that defendant had same at date of levy, and that it was subject. Ibid.

5. Tax collector and sureties, illegality not the proper remedy to an execution issued by the comptroller-general against. Manning vs. Phillips et al., 548.

6. Court, illegality can only be used as a remedy to an execution issued from. Ibid.

INDICTMENT. See Criminal Law, 25, 31.

INDORSEMENT.

1. Contract for payment to landlord by cotton and money for rent

and provisions, indorsed by him, "I hereby transfer, assign

and indorse," made landlord an indorser for value, and liable without first showing insolvency of maker. Smith vs. Brooks, 356.

2. Plea that before debt became due, indorser notified holder to make money out of cotton then in tenant's hands subject thereto, which he afterwards disposed of, and debt was lost, is demurrable, especially as county of principal's residence was not stated in notice. Ibid.

3. Contract between indorser and payee of a note, distinct from that between payee and maker. Freeman, executor, vs. Bigham, 580.

INFANCY.

1. Legal majority is 21 years of age. All persons, male or female, younger are infants. Dent vs. Cock, 400.

2. Indentures of apprenticeship, during minority, vest master with no greater right over female apprentice than parent has; and on her reaching age of eighteen years are not void as in restraint of marriage. Ibid.

INJUNCTION.

1. Blacksmith shop, discretion of chancellor enjoining erection of, will not be controlled, where the circumstances, in his opinion, making it a nuisance, preponderate, though it may not be a nuisance per se. Whitaker vs. Hudson, 43.

2. Deed of trust authorizing sale of estate on written consent of beneficiary, and trustee sells without such consent, ousting of purchaser not enjoined. Berrien, trustee, et al. vs. Thomas, 61.

3. Trust estate solvent, court will not grant injunction, to enable itself to decree payment to the purchaser for improvements, the prayer being only for specific performance. Ibid.

4. Refusal of injunction in this case proper. Georgia Penitentiary Co., No. 2, et al. vs. Nelms et al., 67.

5.

"Fast writ of error lies to grant or refusal of injunction, but not to decree dismissing bill on demurrer at chambers or in term. Sheibly et al. vs. Georgia Southern Railroad, 107. 6. Mortgagee alleging that a senior mortgagee held but an equitable mortgage, though in form an alsolute deed, and that by reason of usurious payments his debt was nearly paid, that he was about to sell to an innocent purchaser, etc; the evidence being conflicting, discretion not abused by grant of an injunction. Brumby, trustee, vs. Bell, 116.

7. Alimony, injunction granted as well against others co-operative with him as against husband, to prevent alienation of property to defeat. Gray Bros. vs. Gray, 193.

8. Ordinance levying tax on gross sales of cotton on commission by warehousemen, etc., conflicts with act of 1873, prohibiting municipal corporations from levying tax on cotton, or the sales thereof, and its enforcement was properly restrained by injunction. Mayor and Council of Columbus vs. Flournoy & Epping et al., 231.

9. Affidavits conflicting, discretion granting injunction not controlled. Rahilly et al. vs. Horton; Sum. Mac. R. Co. vs. Bohler; Cottle et al. vs. Cottle et al.; Franke vs. Berkner et

al.. 302.

10. Sale under fi. fa. not enjoined to allow wife of defendant to contest with holder and transferee as to her right to an interest therein; court will order sheriff to retain enough of proceeds to protect her interest. Thomas vs. Wilkinson et al.,

405.

11. Libel, equity will enjoin publication of, and this principle applies to equitable rights arising under patent laws of the United States, legality of patent not being subject of inquiry, but only collateral to the relief sought. In this case refusal of injunction was no abuse of discretion. Bell & Co. vs. Singer Manufacturing Co., 452.

12. Temporary injunction of an execution pending suit is proper, where a perpetual injunction thereof on final decree would follow. McLendon vs. Turner, 577.

13. Action at law not restrained where defenses can be fully set up therein. Concurrent jurisdiction of law and equity courts has been enlarged, and the court first taking will retain, except on good cause shown. Northeastern R. R. Co. vs. Barrett et al., executors, 601.

14. Right-of-way, allegations that judgment on a writ ad quod damnum had been rendered in complainant's favor against railroad company for property condemned as, the title thereto to vest in said company on payment of sum assessed, but establish. ing no special lien thereon; that pending these proceedings said company became insolvent and was sold under decree to defendant, who was using said land as a part of its right-ofway, and praying injunction of such use until payment of sum assessed, and general relief, is not demurrable. Common law furnishes no remedy. Gammage vs. Georgia Southern R. R. Co., 614.

15. Complainant being in laches, refusal of temporary injunction not interfered with, but chancellor directed to submit to the

jury whether defendant be not enjoined, if judgment not paid in a time to be by them fixed. Ibid.

16. Judgment at law on the draft itself in favor of one surety against another, the issue being was he a co-surety and liable for contribution at all, will not bar a bill to enjoin such judgment involving new issues and parties, filed by co-surety as such. Simmons vs. Camp, 673.

17. Pleadings vague and uncertain, no error in refusing an order nisi. Ibid.

INTEREST AND USURY.

1. Decree binding all property, without reference to sale of particular property and distribution of the proceeds, has the same force as regards interest as judgment, when contesting for money. National Bank of Augusta vs. Heard, 189.

2. Decree providing for sale of certain property and division of proceeds according to certain fixed priorities, naming amounts to be paid to claimants, and there is not enough to pay principal and interest, interest will not be given to one to the exclusion of others. Net increase of property from which fund arose, in a receiver's hands, would be divided proportionally. Ibid.

3. Plea setting up right to recover usury on notes in suit, only authorizes recovery of that, although usury may have been paid on other notes between same parties. Haywood vs. Lewis, executor, 221.

4. Note for $172.00, with twelve per cent interest, given in 1876, for a loan of $150.00, is usurious and works a forfeiture under act of 1875. Lanier vs. Cox et al., 265.

5. Forfeiture for usury under act of 1875 was only the interest and excess; the entire principal loaned could be recovered, and that, whether interest and usury were unpaid or had been paid, and were sued for or set off against a suit for the principal. Ibid.

6. Interest due and payable by contract at fixed time, itself bears interest if not then paid. Tillman et al. vs. Morton, 386.

7. Usury, plea of must set out amounts, dates, etc. Ibid.

JUDGMENTS.

1. Equitable defense requiring the introduction of new parties not Waters et al., ex'rs, vs. Per

concluded by judgment at law.

kins, 32.

2. Verdict for the plaintiff for certain amount without mentioning defendant, it is against the defendants who were made parties to the case, and no others; and a decree against such de. fendants only follows the verdict.-Saulsbury, Respess & Co. vs. Blandys, 45.

3. Action for purchase money of land in 1865, to which defendant filed plea under relief act of 1868, and a verdict was rendered, "for the plaintiff, the return of the land." A judgment was entered thereon in 1870, that plaintiff recover of defendant certain described land which the latter had bought of him. Such verdict and judgment are not void for uncertainty. McWilliams vs. Walthall et al., ex'rs, 109.

4. Order discharging defendant in trover, with bail process, on his own recognizance, is not such final judgment as authorizes a writ of error. Marks vs. Hertz, 119.

5. Title to land bought by executor at his own sale being only voidable, land is subject to judgment rendered against him whilst he so held title. Thornton, ord'y, vs. Willis, trustee, 184.

6. Fi. fa., none issued on judgment, or if issued no levy made, and to revive which no steps have been taken, cannot be revived after ten years. Seibels vs. Hodges, 245.

7. Appeal cause, judgment in by court, without a verdict, is illegal, and where papers show this, scire facias to revive same should be dismissed. Ibid.

8. Newly discovered evidence, though this court would not have opened judgment on account of, deeming party negligent, yet it will not control discretion of the court below so doing. Wakefield vs. Moore, sheriff, et al., 268.

9. Rule absolute against sheriff is not final and conclusive like judgment. It is the dealing of the court with its defaulting officer, and can be renewed or annulled at the same or subsequent term upon motion, on showing made that sheriff was not in contempt. Ibid.

10. Division of lands by commissioners, on application of administrator, and return made to the ordinary, share allotted to an heir is subject to judgment against him. That administrator never accepted the heir's receipt for the land makes no difference. DuBose, administrator, vs. Cleghorn, Herring & Co. et al., 302.

11. Follow judgment in favor of "R. P. Hooper and his wife for use of L. P. Hooper," fi. fa. in favor of "R. P. Hooper