Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Cross-bill not passed on when judgment affirmed. Hill vs. Silvey,

501(3). Dismiss, motion to, not passed on, where judgment affirmed. Ibid. Evidence, error in rejecting, not considered where not appear what it was.

Askew vs. Carr, 685(2). Evidence, ground of objection to admissibility of, not disclosed, not

considered. Tarver vs. Torrance, 261(2). Evidence, rejection of some competent not necessarily cause re

versal. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins, 94(9). Exceptions to rulings of judge made in writing on exceptions filed

to auditor's report, will be considered, though final judgment not excepted to. Parker vs. Waycross & Florida

Railroad, 387(1). Final judgment; threat of superior court to remove executor unless

he give bond, not reviewable until done. Powell vs. Ham

mond, 567(3). Hardship of decision, when constrained by the law, appeals urging,

not listened to. Deyton vs. Bell, 371(3). Harmless error not work reversal. Clower vs. Fleming, 247(4). Interrogatory, answer to cross, not full enough, error in overruling,

objection to, not considered, when, Roberts vs. Crowley,

429(2), Irrelevant evidence admitted ; if immaterial or nearly so, not cause

reversal. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(6). Mistakes in record, suggestions of, too late, if not made before call of case.

Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(36). Newly discovered evidence, credibility of witnesses establishing,

must appear. Dominick vs. State, 715. Parties; contest between creditors only on money rule, sheriff need

not be made a party defendant in error. Moore vs. Brown,

10(2). Presumption is in favor of correctness of judgment below. Wikle

vs. Woolley, 119(3). Reinstate dismissed case, court will, where sole counsel for plaintiff

in error absent from sudden access of illness. Moore vs.
Brown, 10(1).
Same: If ot circuit reached before reinstatement, will

be continued or heard on briefs. Ibid. Reinstatement of disinissed case; wife of counsel of plaintiff in

error about to be confined, insufficient, when. Evans vs.

Kilby, 278. Return of indictment into court, record not disclosing what min

utes showed as to, clerk required to complete, under 84272(g). Bowen ve Siate, 484.

Rule out testimony; must appear motion was made before close of

case to jury. Wright vs. State, 745. Verdict finding answers to questions submitted under 24206, no

writ of error lies to, until judgment entered. McGowan vs.
Lufburrow, 358.
Same: Leave granted to enter exceptions pendente lite on

return of case. Ibid.

PRESCRIPTION.

Adverse possession, question of, is one of intent, and turns on

bona fides of tenant. Ware vs. Barlow, 7. Charge as to, though erroneous here, not work reversal. Clower rs.

Fleming, 247(4). Constructive notice not make title fraudulent. Ware vs. Barlow, 6. Ejectment; title ripened by prescription in defendant before

amendment filed laying demise in remaindermen, no re

covery. Jones vs. Johnson, 294(3). Forged bond for title; bond by pretended agent without authority

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

Same: Simmons vs. Lane, 25 Ga. 178, distinguished. Ibid. Grant, plaintiff having good prescriptive title may recover in eject

ment without showing. Parker vs. Waycross & Florida, 392. Innocent purchaser from agent of two executors, protected against

mistake of law on his part, when. Ware rs. Barlow, 1(la). Possession must not originate in fraud, as used in code, means ac

tual not legal fraud. Ibid. 1(1).
Same: Hunt vs. Dunn, 74 Ga. 120, doubted and distin-

guished. Ibid. Private way, person claiming, must bring himself strictly within

the law; what must appear, stated. Collier vs Farr, 749. Tenant for life, one holding under, acquires no title against re

maindermen suing withir seven years. Bagley vs. Kennedy,

721(1). Trustee barred by, beneficiaries are also; rule defined and ex

plained. East Rome Co. 18. Cothran, 359(2).

PRESUMPTIONS. See Illegality ; Practice in Supreme Court.
Forged, that deed is, arise from certificate of executive department

that was no such attesting officer in that county. Parker

vs. Waycross & Fiorida Railroad, 393. Indictment no presumption that it was returned regularly, it

minutes show none. Bowen 18. State, 483.

Jurisdiction: term of return of bill not appearing, presumption is

chancellor had proof before him, as to, before decreeing.

Mayer vs. Horer, 315(3). Mental competency of witness examined by interrogatories, pre

sumed. Mayor 1's. Caldwell, 76(4). Virility, normal powers of, presumed in mature male person.

Gardner 18. State, 144(+).

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See ('ontracts.

Authority of P. to act as agent for company, cannot be proved by

declarations of a director. Fla. Midland vs. Varnedoe, 176(3). Same: Nor by newspaper report of a company meeting.

Ibid. 176,4). Holding one out as agent, what facts amount to, by a railroad com

pany. Ibid. 176(8). Sayings of one man cannot make another, or a corporation, his prin

cipal; error to refuse charge, when. Ibid. Undisclosed principal may sue on contract of affreightment, but

agency must be alleged and proved. Atlanta & West Point Co. 1's. Teras Grate Co. 602(2).

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
Administrator reviving barred debt and sureties liable thereon,

discussed. Crabtree vs. Graham, 290. Bond of sheriff guilty of official misconduct, may be sued on, before

recovery against him. Jefferson vs. Hartley, 716. Discharged, surety is, where creditor agreed to take mortgage with

waiver of homestead, and took usurious and void one.

Small v8. Hicks, 691(1). Duress of illegal imprisonment, principal signing under, surety not Relieved; surety on note who was also landlord to tenant, is not,

bound. Patterson 1s. Gibson, 802(1).
Same: Knowledge of imprisonment but not of illegality,

not alter case. Ibid. Notice to sue; presumption feeble that creditor preserved it. Crau

food vs. Hodge, 728.
Same: Notice to produce dispensed with, if facts show it

would be nugatory. Ibid. Plea by surety that principal signed under duress of illegal impris

ment and want of knowledge by surety, error to strike.

Patterson 18. Gibson, 802.
Principal not liable for any cause, surety not liable. Ibid. 804.

by payee making further advances, and taking mortgage on
crop. Stokes vs. Gillis, 187.
Same: Nor by payee taking crop on which surety had land-

lord's lien for rent. Ibid.
Same: Surety could recover of payee value of the rent, or

amount of his damage. Ibid. Tax fi. fa. of comptroller against collector, sureties paying off, subro

gated to all the rights and liens of the State. Irby vs. Living

ston, 281.

PRIVATE WAYS.

Obstructions, applicant to obtain removal of, must show what.

Collier vs. Farr, 749.

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. See Libel; Notice to Produce.

PROBABLE CAUSE. See Malicious Prosecution.

PROFITS. See Damages.

PROMISSORY NOTES.

Collateral security, though transferred as, title is in holder. An

drew vs. Stewart, 53(2).
Same: As to rights of transferee of rent note under acts

1882-3, p. 109. Ibid. Conditions precedent in notes given for instalments of subscription

to capital stock of railroad, discussed. Johnson vs. Georgia

Midland, 725. Fraud in bank discounting note given for flour, having already dis

counted draft drawn against same shipment, facts here not

establish. Boatmen's Bank vs. Western & Atlantic, 121(1, 2). Maturity of notes for instalments of subscription to stock of rail

road, payable on completion of section “ready for the cross-ties,” etc., discussed. Johnson vs. Ga. Midland, 725. Same: Recitals as to privilege to be secured, as to how

road to be operated, and to side tracks, not conditions

precedent, when. Ibid. Purchase money of land; note given to heir for her interest “ to be

paid when he got possession,” held to be due under special
facts here. James vs. Hutcherson, 451.
Same: Administrator having sold and maker buying, en-

titled to his part of proceeds of sale, and if he failed to
get it, may set off against note. Ibid.

Purchase money of mule, reserving title; if seller transfers it, he

cannot recover in trover, without surrendering note. Tid-
well vs. Burkett, 84.
Same: Bringing the action is equivalent to a rescission.

Ibid.
Rent; note here was for, though as printed adapted to advances

also. Andrew vs. Stewart, 53(4).

PUBLIC POLICY.

Privileged communications in pleadings; protection on grounds of,

discussed. Wilson vs. Sullivan, 238(1).

RAILROADS.

Agent, authority of P. to act as, cannot be proved by declarations

of a director. Florida Midland vs. Varnedoe, 176(3).
Same: Nor by newspaper report of a company meeting.

Ibid. 176(4).
Agent to contract for cross-ties, what facts amount to a holding of

one out as an. Ibid. 176(8). Alight in safety, if reasonable time allowed to, no recovery. Cov

ington vs. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 273(3).
Aliter, if reasonable time not allowed, and passenger

jumped, when. Ibid. Alight, reasonable time to; evidence here conflicting, and recovery

sustained. Atlanta & West Point Railroad vs. Smith, 620(1). Assault and battery on licensee of right to sell lunches, by com

petitor in trade, road not liable for. Fluker vs. Georgia

Railroad, 461(4).
Bill of lading, assignee of, has no greater rights than assignor.

Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(3a).
Same: Assignor knowing shipment was not as yet received

by road issuing, cannot recover for delays on previous

road caused by armed mob. Ibid. Bill of lading, evidence to contradict terms of, inadmissible. Skellie

vs. Central Railroad, 56(3). Bill of lading; fraud of consignor in dealings with consignee, not

affect holder, when. Boatmen's Bank vs. Western & Atlantic
Railroai, 221(2).
Same: Consignee here having got possession of the goods

from carrier, gave consignee his note for the price and

paid it, carrier held liable. Ibid. Bill of lading important security of commerce, and not defeated

by presumption. Ibid. 221(3).

« PředchozíPokračovat »