Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Deed in plaintiff's possession from his testator to defendant, not

estop defendant from denying plaintiff's title. Parker 28.

Waycross & Florida Railroad, 388(3). Improvements, standing by and not objecting to; discretion of

chancellor in granting temporary injunction not controlled,

when. East Rome Co. vs. Cothran, 360(5). Waiver; none will estop purchaser of fertilizers from pleading

against seller want of legal inspection. Faircloth r8. De Leon, 158.

EVIDENCE. See Railroads,

Admissions: implied from silence, where direct declarations of kind

that naturally call for contradiction. Bray vs. Latham, 642. Admission, silence, as an, discussed. Bray vs. Latham, 640(1).

Same: Plaintiff testified A charged defendant with set

ting fire to his house; A denied this; error to exclude evidence, in rebuttal, that A did so charge, though rebut

ting witness could not say defendant was present. Ibid. Adultery: evidence tending to show defendant used one of his wit

nesses to levy blackmail on third person, inadmissible on
charge of. Gardner vs. State, 147(2).
Aliter, as to evidence showing opportunity, and the res

gestæ of its continuance. Ibid. 1493. Ambiguity in submission to award explainable by parol. Riley vs.

Hicks, 265(2). Award; no ground for excluding, that referees denied one party

proper hearing. Ibid. 265(4). Character: See Witness. Circumstantial, may establish guilt, notwithstanding strong proof of

good character. Steadman vs. State, 736(1). Circumstantial; sufficient here to show that mother killed newly

born child. Echols vs. State, 696. Construction; that will be adopted which will harmonize all of

plaintiff's evidence, defendant introducing none. Atlanta

& West Point Co. vs. Texas Grate Co. 602(2). Dead, opposite party being, still if plaintiff asked witness who was a

party if he signed paper, may on cross-examination explain

fully. Carlton vs. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 531(1). Death: heirs suing, defendant competent to rebut his declarations

testified to, with third persons. Hardman vs. Nowell, 748. Declarations and conversations which are part of the res gesta (horse

swap and wrongful resumption afterward), admissible. Cook vs. Pinkerton, 89(3).

Y 81-54

Declarations by one in possession of land in disparagement of her

title, admissible. Johnson vs. Cox, 25. Declarations of deceased made some days before killing, that she

feared deceased would kill her, inadmissible. Woolfolk vs.

State, 55213). Declarations of defendant charged with killing his father, mother,

sisters and brothers, made-two years before trial, to the effect that he was going to inherit that property, admis

sible. I bid. 552(5). Discretion of court in admitting additional evidence after defendant

closes, recognized. Central Railroad vs. Nash, 580(1, la). Exchange by children of their portions in division of testator's

property, agreement to, not admissible to affect rights of

grandchildren remaindermen, Crawley vs. Blackman, 775. Forthcoming bond, suit on; evidence of constable that he had ad

vertised property, and it was not produced, admissible:

Bowden vs. Taylor, 199(4). Good character, evidencé as tó, entitled to what weight. Shropshire

vs. State, 591. (And see Character under Witness.) Hearsay improperly admitted, not work new trial,, when verdict

fully sustained by other evidence. Wilson vs. Coleman,

297(3). . Hearsay: sayings of bystander, when hat drawn out of well, ten

days after killing, that it belonged to son of deceased, inad.

missible. Woolfolk vs. State, 551(1). Hearsay: that C. sent clerk to W., for a particular sample, and he

returned with it, admitted. Wilson v8. Coleman, 297(2). Hearsay: witness's voluntary statement on cross-examination, that

he gave opinion, when informed that a whole family was killed except one, "then that one is T. W.," inadmissible.

Woolfolk vs. State, 552(2). Illegal evidence not admissible to rebut same sort on other side ad

mitted without objection. Ibid. 552(3a). Illegal, some admitted, second grant of new trial approved. Towner

vs. Thompson, 171. jury in another case gave credit to plaintiff's testimony, witness

cannot testify that. Rigden vs. Jordan, 669(6): Opinion of witness as to who was the guilty person, inadmissible.

Woolfolk 18. Ştate, 552(2). Parol admissible to explain ambiguity in contract.of sale of oats.

Wilson vs. Coleman, 297(1). Parol admissible to show that time stated in contract for delivery of

cotton-seed oil-mill machinery was of essence. Yan Winkle 08. Wilkins, 94(4).

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Parol inadmissible to vary written. Patterson vs. Ramspeck, 808

(1, la). Parol not admissible to contradict sheriff's entry as to what prop

erty was sold. Parler vs. Johnson, 254(2). Previous difficulty between accused and deceased admissible,

though friendly after. Starke 28. State, 593(2). Proceedings of superior court can only be shown by extract from

minutes duly certified. Bowden vs. Taylor, 199(3).
Same: Original order dismissing illegality, not admissible.

Ibid.
Rebuttal; general character of main witness for State attacked,

other evidence as to principal facts admitted.. Bray vs La.

tham, 643. Rebuttal: plaintiff makes out prima facie case; vigorously assailed

by defendant; plaintiff may fortify his title. Ibid. Rebuttal: plaintiff testified to sale; defendant testified sale was

conditional; error to exclude plaintiff to deny this. Ibid. Rebuttal: presence of State's witness, denied by defendant's wit

ness, proper to admit others to prove he was there. Ibid. Rebutting testimony defined. Ibid. 642. Relevant, part tendered was, and part not, not error to reject the

whole. Skellie vs. Central Railroad, 56(1). Res gesta: sayings of bystander, when hat drawn out of well, ten

days after killing, that it belonged to son of deceased, not

admissible as. Woolfolk vs. State, 551(1). Sayings about one's rights behind his back, person is not to be

affected by Moore vs. Brown, 11(5). Secondary, admissible without notice to produce, when. Crawford

t's. Hodge, 728. Secondary, to admit, existence and proper execution must first be

shown. Calhoun vs. Calhoun, 91. Secret of preparation (axle-grease), plaintiff not compelled to dis

close in suit for agreed royalty. Lamar vs. Russell, 299. Silence as an admission, error to reject, evidence tending to estab

lish. Bray vs. Latham, 640(1). Threat made by third person against deceased properly excluded,

when. Woolfolk vs. State, 553(8). Verdict, allowing plaintiff to take, improper, where no evidence

left before jury. Sprinz vs. Frank, 162(1).

EXECUTIONS.

Injunction to restrain; refusal of, not controlled, where charges of

fraud denied. Craig vs. Crosby, 650.

Nulla bona, entry of, made after dormancy, and dated back so as to

revive, is not only void but villainous. Sprinz vs. Frank,
162(4).

Same: Open to question by parol evidence. Ibid. 162(2).
Nulla bona, traverse of entry of, officer need not be made a party.

Ibid. 162.
Receipt for costs, to sheriff, entered by magistrate on fi. fa , pre-

vents dormancy. - Gholston vs. O'Kelley, 19.
Transferee can only enforce it for amount due on it, for which it

was transferred to him. Satterfield vs. Boyd, 316.
Same: Defendant cannot, by agreement, increase amount,

80 as to affect third persons. Ibid.

EXECUTOR DE SON TORT. See Administrators and Executors.

FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.

Machinery defective and delayed, right to recoup damages not

waived by receiving and using. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins,
94(7).
Same: Nor will sale of oil-mill defeat right to recoup

against contract price of such machinery. Ibid.
Machinery defective in kind, and delivery delayed beyond time

stipulated, are both matters for reducing contract price.
Ibid. 93(1).

FEE SIMPLE. See Estates.

FELLOW-SERVANTS. See Master and Servant,

FENCE. See Stock-Law,

FERTILIZERS.

Analysis, information from, made by witness himself, admissible,

but not from others, or from effect on crops. Patterson

v8. Ramspeck, 808, 3a).
Analysis on each sack guaranteed, sale by, not error to reject

representations of agent as to grade and ingredients. Ibid.
808(1).
Same: If representations made from circular, circular

should be produced. Ibid. 808(la).
Hearsay as to analyses by. State chemist, and as to dissatisfac-

tion of others in use of it, inadmissible. Ibid. 808.

Verdict here for plaintiff sustained by the evidence. Maddox vs.

Cole, 325(1). Waiver, none will estop buyer from pleading against seller want of

legal inspection. Faircloth vs. De Leon, 158.

FINES AND FORFEITURES.

County not entitled to share in distribution of. Gordon County vs.

Harris, 719.
Insolvent costs, how distributed in payment of. Ibid.

FORGERY. See Deeds.

Bond for title signed by pretended agent, without authority, is a

forgery, and is good color of title. Millen vs. Stines, 655.

Same: Simmons vs. Lane, 25 Ga. 178, distinguished. Ibid. Indorsement of check. See Banks, and thereunder, Forged in

dorsement.

FORMER ACQUITTAL. See Criminal Law.

FORMER CONVICTION. See Criminal Law.

FORMER RECOVERY. See Pleadings.

FORTHCOMING BONDS. See Attorney's Fees; Illegality.

FRAUD. See Possessory Warrant ; Statute of Limitations. Administrator, between, and first vendee, not affect title of subse

quent one without notice. King vs. Cabaniss, 662(3). Bill of lading, indorsee of, not affected by fraud of consignor in deal

ings with consignee, Boatmen's Bank vs. Western & Atlan

tic Railroad, 221(2). Good faith, court should leave to jury, but failure not cause re

versal where verdict demanded, Ware vs. Barlow, 2(2a). Husband, secret contract by, with wife, bona fides must be clearly

established. Skellie ts. James, 419(1). Injunction, refusal of; discretion of chancellor not controlled,

where charges of, denied. Craig vs. Crosby, 650. In pari delicto: defendant holding under grantee of an alleged

fraudulent conveyance from plaintiff, to defeat trover suit
must show fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Conley vs.
Thornton, 154(1).
Same: This defence is recognized for the sake of the pub-

lic, not of the defendant. Ibid.

« PředchozíPokračovat »