Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Official entry made after dormancy and dated back, effect of. Sprinz vs. Frank, 162.

Prescription, fraud to prevent title by, means actual fraud, not legal. Ware vs. Barlow, 1(1).

Same: Hunt vs. Dunn, 74 Ga, 120, doubted and distinguished. 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 fraudulent mortgage by him, and threatened sale, when make case for injunction and receiver. Wolfe vs. Claflin, 64(1).

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.

Trover to recover property conveyed for benefit of creditors, to defeat action, fraud of plaintiff must appear beyond a reasonable doubt. Conley vs. Thornton, 154.

GAINESVILLE.

Suit against "the mayor and council of the city of Gainesville," sustained under the terms of its charter. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(1).

GARNISHMENT.

City not subject to, for work done on municipal school-house. Born vs. Williams, 796(1).

County of his residence, garnishee called to answer only in. West vs. Harvey, 711.

Same: Main case in other county, something should be 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).

Same: Debtor may insist on exemption, whether garnishee does or not. Ibid.

Exemptions; debts due physician, not exempt, though earned in part by use of homestead property. Staples vs. Keister, 772. Exemption; debtor dissolving, under act Oct. 15, 1885, may insist on exemption though garnishee does not. Born vs. Williams, 796(2).

Exempt, salary of teacher in city public school is. Ibid. 800.

Same: So is debt due contractor working on school building. Ibid. 796.

[ocr errors]

Service of, by serving copy, no law for. West vs. Harvey, 711.

Teacher in public schools of city, salary exempt. Born vs. Williams,

800.

GOOD CHARACTER. See Charge of Court;. Evidence.

GRAND JURORS. See Jury and Jurors.

GRANT. See Ejectment; Prescription.

HOLIDAYS. Fourth of July, courts may sit and render valid judg-
ment on. Hamer vs. Sears, 288.

HOMESTEAD.

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.
"Produce, rents or profits" of, (22026) not include debts due physi-
cian though earned in part by use of exempt property.
Staples vs. Keister, 772.

Same: Wade vs. Weslow, 62 Ga. 562; Johnson vs. Franklin &
Whitney, 63 Ga. 378, and Kupferman vs. Buckholts, 73 Ga.
778, distinguished. Ibid.

Sale: purchaser gets good title, though homestead set apart to
widow with minor children, and deceased husband owed
no debts. Deyton vs. Bell, 370(1, 1a).

Sale: trustee or guardian applying for leave to sell, children must
be made parties. Ibid. 370(2).

Sale: widow applying for leave to sell need not join children.
Ibid.

Same Besides, they were made parties here, and guardian
ad litem, appointed, who assented, but after order granted.
Ibid. 370 2a).

Sale: wife must join husband in application. Ibid. 370 2).

Same: If applicant a widow, she need not join children
with her. Ibid.

Usury in mortgage with waiver of, waiver void. Small vs. Hicks,
691(1).

Same: Surety discharged where creditor agreed to take
mortgage with waiver, and took usurious and void one.

Ibid.

[ocr errors]

Widow, with minor children, may have, in estate of her deceased husband. Deyton vs. Bell, 370(1)..

Same: Application (in 1871) need not set out that husband
owed debts. Ibid.

Same: That he owed none, not make exemption void.
Ibid. 370 1a).

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)..

Same: Obtaining leave of chancellor to sell, not affect her title. Ibid. 34(1).

Separate estate, children of married woman who had, did not share with their father prior to 1871. Ibid. 29(2).

Same: Wife dying in 1868 or 1869, her property descended directly to her husband. Ibid.

Same: Purchase money notes given to her for land were inherited by the husband. Ibid. 29(2a).

Same: Husband could pledge such notes as collateral security 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).

Same: Juries need no encouragement to vindicate wife's title. Ibid.

Transactions between, should be scanned with care, and bona fides of secret contract between, must be clearly established. Skellie vs. James, 419(1).

Same: Charge, "should, perhaps, be looked into a little more closely," error.

Ibid.

Same Facts here required positive and stringent instruc

tions. Ibid. 419(1a).

Verdict against husband and wife for rent and damages sustained here. Brinson vs. Lassiter, 43(3).

Same: The wife here purchased the land at tax sale under an excessive levy. Ibid.

Writ of possession against husband, wife cannot be removed from her own land under. Jefferson vs. Hartley, 717.

ILLEGALITY.

Forthcoming bond: Breach of, necessary to show property adver-
tised, and had not been produced. Bowden vs. Taylor,
199,4).

Same: Evidence of constable that it had been advertised,
and fi. fa. not paid, admissible. Ibid.

Forthcoming bond defective, officer should not accept it. Lytle vs.
De Vaughn, 228.

Same: But if he does so, it is amendable. Ibid.

Forthcoming bond for $300; suit for less than $100, justice court
has jurisdiction. Bowden vs. Taylor, 199(1).

Forthcoming bond: misdescription in, defendants getting possession
under, cannot take advantage of. Ibid. 199(2).

Forthcoming bond; no recovery on, until illegality disposed of.
Ibid. 199(3a).

Same: Original order of superior court dismissing not ad-
missible in justice court. Ibid. 199(3).

Forthcoming bond, suit on; attorneys' fees properly embraced in
judgment on, when. Bowden vs. Taylor, 204(2).

Forthcoming bond to mortgage fi. fa. amendable at any stage of the
proceedings. Lytle vs. De Vaughn, 228.

Presumption is, in absence of affidavit, that all grounds apparent
were embraced. Bowden vs. Taylor, 204(1).

Same: If not then taken, could not be insisted on after-
wards. Ibid.

Res adjudicata, grounds made or which could have been made in
one first filed, are. Craig vs. Crosby, 650.

Verdict, none should be allowed, but illegality dismissed, where no
evidence admitted in support of. Sprinz vs. Frank, 164、1).

IMPEACHMENT. See Witness.

INDICTMENT. See Criminal Law.

INDORSEMENT.

Bill of lading not indorsed to plaintiff by party in whose favor
issued, no recovery. Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(3'.
Forged, name of indorser of check. See Banks, and thereunder,
Forged indorsement,

INFANCY. See Minors.

[ocr errors]

INJUNCTION.

Alley, public, to restrain erection of
land abutting, grant proper.
Discretion in denying not abused here.

Discretion in granting not controlled,
Cothran, 360(5, 6).

Discretion not abused in granting here.

house over, complainant's Cohen vs Bank, 723.

Me Mekin vs. Richards, 192. when. East Rome Co. vs.

Baker vs. Mills, 342.

Same: Proceeding was by creditor, not in judgment, setting 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. Hammond, 567(1).

Same: Restraining sale of property which executor claimed 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 vs. Hammond, 567(1).

Refusal of, to test validity of charter of Toombsboro, under 22775 to 778, not error. Duncan vs 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.

INSANITY.

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 commissioners. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(4).

-Same: If disputed by other evidence, properly left to jury.
Ibid.

Witness examined by commissioners presumed competent. Ibid. 79. Same: Lunatic prima facie competent to make pauper affidavit and enter appeal in suit brought by guardian.

« PředchozíPokračovat »