« FöregåendeFortsätt »
4. Immaterial that bonds in dispute are not the identical ones de-
livered to the bankrupt by the town. The contract contem-
plated the use of the entire issue, and a return in kind. Ibid.
from a trust sought to be set up, if he shows that he had no
chaser, if innocent. Hathorn et al. vs. Maynard, 168.
three-sevenths not in trust to another, error to instruct jury
in the property bought, if he acted thereon as a prudent
man. . Ibid.
his cestuis que trust funds, acquires title to property of which
que trust, bid.
of equal value with original amount received, cannot recover.
majority, repudiated sale and brought ejectment for lot, bill
11. Chancellor at chambers has jurisdiction to order sale of part of
trust estate to pay debt which was an incumbrance on whole
notice and being represented. Ibid.
held the claim which bound the trust estate, receiving trus-
purchaser without notice. Ibid.
seen the purchasers erecting valuable improvements thereon
without objection, are estopped from setting up title thereto.
by like conduct ? Quære. Ibid.
law has concurrent jurisdiction will not oust that of equity,
especially where fraud is charged. Park vs. Park, 740.
queathed to minor until her majority, free from liability for
USURY. See Interest and Usury.
VENUE. See Jurisdiction, 10.
affidavit of party as to what jurors told him. Smith, gov-
ernor, vs. Banks et al., 26.
amount, would be, a finding against the defendants who were
& Co. vs. Blandys, 45.
is assigned, a new trial will not be granted. Brent vs. Mount,
defendant filed a plea under the relief act of 1868, and a ver-
“ for the plain-
liams vs. Walthall et al., executors, 109.
found, to be discharged by delivery of the property in twenty
Southern Express Co. vs. Lynch, 240.
ards vs. Hunt, Rankin Exo Lamar, 342: Fordan vs. Jordan,
7. Where equitable ple set up facts for jury to pass on, a verdict
covering those facts is sufficient if it so decides the issues on
vs. Alexander et ux., 406.
mony, with directions, it is so ordered. Ibid.
for payment of husband's debts; they may be considered in
Hall, administrator, vs. Spivey, 693.
1. Benefits taken under a contract without objection, with knowl-
edge that same has been broken by other party, waives breach.
Cabaniss et al., assignees, vs. Ponder, mayor, et al., 134.
can be waived. Coston vs. Dudley, executor, et al., 252.
edy waived. Ibid.
brought for less than $100.00, and tried on merits before jus-
tiff was valid. Dozier vs. Allen, 255.
the time named in a summons made returnable in less than
could not be waived. Thurston et ux. vs. Wilkerson, 557.
case, as shown by bench docket, though no plea filed and the
See Homestead, 17.
WARRANTY. See Trover, 4.
WAY. See Prescription, 2.
WESTERN & ATLANTIC RAILROAD. See Contracts, 16.
1. Construction for court where will is not ambiguous or uncer-
tain. Phill ps, adm'x, vs. Crews et al., 274.
possible, the last prevails. Ibid.
estate, after certain specific bequests on certain trusts, with
Ware et al. vs. Trustees of
of equalization on death of widow, but that that should be
1. Purchase money paid by complainant's father, but the deed
made to complainant's husband, and he is dead; on a bill to
agent. Davis, adm'r, et al. vs. McLester, 132.
facts of the transaction, witness may give his understanding
of it as he heard it from the parties. Phillips vs. Lindsey, 139.
band, although payee is dead. Rush, adm'r, vs. Ross, adm'r,
same grantor; in an action of ejectment between the two
them out of hearing, but witness remaining not rendered
6. Jurisdiction, witness out of, general rule is that a continuance will
be refused; but where witness has promised, and is reasonably
ment should be allowed. Brown vs. State, 332.
county of residence, applies only to superior court. Commis-
sioners of Floyd County vs. Black, 384.
tween them, or as to what was reported to her as coming
from deceased. Robinson et al. vs. Alexander et ux., 406.
ney in contemplation of his employment. If she voluntarily
10. Party to cause of action may testify as to contract between him-
self and agent of other, though principal be dead, the agent
principals. Freeman, executor, vs. Bigham, 580.
party to the suit, does not alter case; he was not a party to
the contract. Ibid,
ing maker's liability, maker competent witness though payee
radict his testimony by other witnesses. Cronan vs. Roberts