« PředchozíPokračovat »
Official entry made after dormancy and dated back, effect of.
Sprinz vs. Frank, 162.
legal. Ware vs. Barlow, 1(1).
guished. Ibid. Purchaser from agent of two executors, though will named thrée,
gets good prescriptive title, when. Ibid. 1(16). Sale made on fraudulent misrepresentations of debtor, and 'fraudu
lent mortgage by him, and threatened sale, when make case for injunction and receiver. Wölfe vs. Claflin, 64(1).
Trover to recover property conveyed for benefit of creditors, to de.
feat action, fraud of plaintiff must appear beyond a reasonable doubt. Conley vs. Thornton, 154.
Suit against "the mayor and council of the city of Gainesville,"
sustained under the terms of its charter. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(1).
City not subject to, for work done on municipal school-house.
Born vs. Williams, 796(1).
v8. Harvey, 711.
filed to show connection, · Ibid, Dissolving, under act Oct. 15, 1885, not hinder debtor to set up that
debt was not subject. Born vs. Williams, 796(2):
does or not. Ibid. Exemptions; debts due physician, not exempt, though earned in
part by use of homestead property. Staples is. Keister, 772. Exemption ; debtor dissolving, under act Oct. 15, 1885, may
insist on exemption though garnishee does not. Born vs. Wil
liams, 796(2). Exempt, salary of teacher in city public school is. Ibid. 800.
Same: So is debt due contractor working on school build
ing. Ibid. 796.
Service of, by serving copy, no law for. West v8. Harvey, 771.
GOOD CHARACTER. See Charge of Court;. Evidence.
HOLIDAYS. Fourth of July, courts may sit and render valid judg-
Hamer vs. Sears, 288.
Dormant, judgment becoming, pending existence of, is so at expira-
tion of. Anderson vs. Kilgo, 699.
Same: Hart vs. Evans, 80 Ga. 330, distinguished. Ibid.
cian though earned in part by use of exempt property.
Whitney, 63 Ga. 378, and Kupferman vs. Buckholts, 73 Ga.
778, distinguished. Ibid.
widow with minor children, and deceased husband owed
no debts. Deylon vs. Bell, 370(1, 1a).
be made parties. Ibid. 370(2).
ad litem, appointed, who assented, but after order granted.
Ibid. 370, 2a).
Same: If applicant a widow, she need not join children
with her. Ibid.
mortgage with waiver, and took usurious and void one.
Widow, with minor children, may have, in estate of her deceased
husband. Deyton vs. Bell, 370(1). -
owed debts. Ibid.
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Deed on January 2, 1867, to husband as trustee for wife, vested title
in her at once. Lathrop vs. White, 29(1).
title. Ibid. 34(1). Separate estate, children of married woman who had, did not share
with their father prior to 1871. Ibid. 29(2).
directly to her husband. Ibrd.
inherited by the husband. Ibid. 29(2a). Same: Husband could pledge such notes as collateral se
curity for his debt. Ibid. Same: As to right of holder of such notes, after death of the
husband. Ibid. 29(3). Sexual intercourse with wife, husband killing to prevent, 24334
charged, when. Cloud vs. State, 449. Title of wife acquired from husband, verdict against, in favor of
creditors, not disturbed. Morgan vs. Swann, 207(1).
title. Ibid. Transactions between, should be scanned with care, and bona fides of
secret contract between, must be clearly established.
more closely," error. Ibid.
tions. Ibid. 419(1a). Verdict against husband and wife for rent and damages sustained
here. Brinson vs. Lassiter, 43(3).
an excessive levy. Ibid. Writ of possession against husband, wife cannot be removed from
her own land under. Jefferson vs. Hartley, 717.
Forthcoming bond: Breach of, necessary to show property adver-
tised, and had not been produced. Bowden vs. Taylor,
and fi. fa. not paid, admissible. Ibid.
De Vaughn, 228.
Same: But if he does so, it is amendable. Ibid.
has jurisdiction. Bowden vs. Taylor, 199(1).
under, cannot take advantage of. Ibid. 199(2).
missible in justice court. Ibid. 199(3).
judgment on, when. Bowden vs. Taylor, 204(2;.
proceedings. Lytle vs. De Vaughn, 228,
were embraced. Bowden vs. Taylor, 204(1).
one first filed, are. Craig vs. Crosby, 650.
evidence admitted in support of. Sprinz vs. Frank, 164, 1).
IMPEACHMENT. See Witness.
INDICTMENT. See Criminal Law.
Bill of lading not in lorsed to plaintiff by party in whose favor
issued, no recovery. Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(3.
INFANCY. See Minors.
Alley, public, to restrain erection of house over, complainant's
land abutting, grant proper. Cohen vs Bank, 723. Discretion in denying not abused here. · McMekin v8. Richards, 192. Discretion in granting not controlled, when. East Rome Co. vs.
Cothran, 360(5, 6).
Same: Proceeding was by creditor, not in judgment, set
ting up fraud of debtor; receiver was appointed. Ibid. Executor; injunction restraining him from using or disposing of
assets except as will directs, sustained. Powell vs. Ham-
as his by gift of testator, proper, when. Ibid. 567(2). Fraud, charges of, denied: discretion in refusing to enjoin fi. fa. not
controlled. Craig vs. Crosby, 650. Judgment, bill to enjoin, for perjury of witness, should show what.
Wilson vs. Sullivan, 242. Law, power of courts of, to administer equitable remedies since acts
1884–5, p. 36, and acts 1887, p. 64, discussed. Manheim vs.
Claflin, 134. Order granting, to be construed in light of prayer. Powell v8. Ham
mond, 567(1). Refusal of, to test validity of charter of Toombsboro, under 23775 to
778, not error. Duncan v8 Mayor, 353. Sale on fraudulent misrepresentations, and fraudulent mortgage
made thereon by debtor, and threatened sale, makes case for, when. Wolfe vs. Claflin, 64(1).
INNOCENT PURCHASER. See Notice.
Lunatic prima facie competent to make pauper affidavit, and enter
appeal, in suit brought by guardian. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 79. Presumption is in favor of sanity of witness examined by commis
sioners. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(4).
Witness examined by commissioners presumed competent. Ibid. 79.
Same: Lunatic prima facie competent to make pauper affi
davit and enter appeal ‘in suit brought by guardian. Ibid.