« PředchozíPokračovat »
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
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).
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).
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).
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).
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,
Same: Open to question by parol evidence. Ibid. 162(2).
vents dormancy. - Gholston vs. O'Kelley, 19.
was transferred to him. Satterfield vs. Boyd, 316.
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,
against contract price of such machinery. Ibid.
stipulated, are both matters for reducing contract price.
FEE SIMPLE. See Estates.
FELLOW-SERVANTS. See Master and Servant,
FENCE. See Stock-Law,
Analysis, information from, made by witness himself, admissible,
but not from others, or from effect on crops. Patterson
v8. Ramspeck, 808, 3a).
representations of agent as to grade and ingredients. Ibid.
should be produced. Ibid. 808(la).
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.
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
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
lic, not of the defendant. Ibid.