« PředchozíPokračovat »
ACCESSORY. See Criminal Law, 14-16.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 1. Executed agreement to receive less than amount of debt, may be plead
Tyler Col. P. Co. vs. Chevalier, 494. 2. Entire claim in dispute, receipt of part on condition that balance be
abandoned, binding as accord and satisfaction. Ibid.
ACTIONS. 1. Case for damages resulting from erection of mill-dam and ponding of
water, by which defendant derived benefit, survives to administrator
of plaintiff. Ellington, adm'r, vs. Bennett, 158. 2. Replevy and await judicial termination of controversy, tenant not bound
to, to entitle him to action for maliciously suing out distress warrant.
Sturgis & Berry vs. Frost, 188. 3. Widow may recover for homicide of husband whether resulting from
act of natural or artificial person, or from intention or criminal negli
gence. Cottingham vs. Weekes, 201. 4. Landlord not responsible for tort by cropper in hiring servants previ
ously employed by another. Duncan vs. Anderson, 398.
ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS. 1. Heirs-at-law cannot maintain bill against defendant as executor de son
tort, for property conveyed to him by their ancestor during life, the deed being alleged to have been procured by fraud; aliter, if they were creditors and there was no administration. Davis et al., vs. Da
vis, ex'r, 37 2. Where money is bequeathed to widow for life with remainder over, duty
of executor to preserve corpus for benefit of remaindermen. Decree in favor of widow against executor on bill to which remaindermen were not parties, no protection to him as against remaindermen. Lee, ex'r,
vs. Chisolm et al., 126. 3. Apprehension of suit by administrator, when appointed, not authorize
person to appear and resist grant of letters. Aug. & Sum. R. R. Co.
vs. Peacock, adm'r, 146. 4. Some interest on the part of objector in assets and their distribution
must appear. Ibid. 5. Case for damages resulting from erection of mill-dam and ponding of
water, by which defendant derived benefit from improvement of mill property, survives to administrator of plaintiff. Ellington, adm'r, vs.
Bennett, 158. 6. If allegation of benefit to defendant be not sufficiently specific in origi.
nal declaration, administrator, in application to be made party, should state proposed amendment.
Ibid. 7. Judgment, administrator not entitled to relief against, because ignorant
that assets of estate were deficient, or because he did not know effect of judgment as evidence of assets. Page, administrator, vs. Haines, administrator, 263.
8. Judgment against administrator reviving dormant judgment against in-
testate, evidence of assets. Ansley & Co. vs. Glendenning, adm'r, 286.
returns upon basis of which settlement had been had, legatees may
ties or neither. Gibbons et al., vs. Jones et al., ex'rs, 297.
gia, liable to be sued here on decree rendered in this state on bill filed
by distributees. Johnson et al. vs. Jackson, administrator, et al., 326.
ecutor.” McFarlin vs. Stinson et al., 396.
by section 2559 of Code, valid so far as anthority to sell is concerned.
Davis, adm'r, Vs. Howard, 430.
being debts outstanding; aliter, if obtained on personal notice to the
practicable, or right to recover forfeited. Sanders, adm'x, vs. Bell,
undivided share, discharged as against land sold for distribution. Mi-
Daniel vs. Edwards, 444.
and not letters testamentary only. Mays, ex'r, et al., vs. Killen, 527.
cation of letters; no reply that it was for benefit of estate. Crump,
adm'r, vs. Williams, 590.
securities were likely to become insolvent. Removal on that ground
is in discretion of jury on appeal. Ibid.
missible to bind estate. Hines, adm'x, vs. Poole, 638.
up will. Lester et al., adm’rs, et al., vs. Matthews, 655.
nor can he make illegal contract of temporary administrator a valuable
warranty of goods sold by defendant to complainant on an accounting
ranty would have been barred. Ayres vs. Daly, 119.
in entire record. Saffold vs. Wade, ex'r, 174.
had previously been sustained, no obstacle thereto. Ibid.
original dates. Ibid.
6. After order to amend judgment and fi. fa. not requisite to enter new
judgment or to issue new fi. fa. Ibid.
was made. Kimbro & Morgan vs. Va. & Tenn. A. L. R. Co., 185.
Ansley & Co. vs. Glendenning, adm’r, 286.
less abused.' Renew vs. Redding, assignee, 311.
especially if action for trespass be barred. Ransone vs. Christian, 351.
stated at time, and should not extend beyond continuance of case, or
payment of costs, etc. Ibid.
Seaboard R. R. Co., 471.
out former. Wilson vs. First Presbyterian Church, 554.
for fees so as to cover same. Lester et al., administrators, et al., vs.
ARREST. See Criminal Law, 8-10.
ASSIGNMENT. See Debtor and Creditor,3,5,6.
house, lien at once attached, and is superior to attachment levied
& Company, 24.
not revived by general judgments thereafter obtained. Loudon, as-
signee, vs. Blandford & Garrard, 150.
wise, on property not described in affidavit. Reid vs. Tucker, 278.
Parker vs. Brady, 372.
cause when main case is ready. Ibid.
be, unless proceeding to his injury, and under circumstances which
would authorize equity to interfere. Williams vs. Stewart et al., 663.
brought into court for distribution, counsel for trustee not entitled to
trustee, et al., 264.
See Lester et al., administrators, et al., vs. Matthews, 655.
commencement of action, which cannot be defeated by dismissal by
client over objection of attorney. Twiggs et al. vs. Chambers, 279.
conclude; nor is right forfeited by fact that he withdrew plea at be-
ginning of trial and did not renew it until plaintiff had made out
prima facie case. Ransone vs. Christian, 351.
client to perform decree in equity, not controlled. "Gray vs. Culber-
son et al., 470.
own, not such "good cause” as will relieve him from the payment of
no authority to bind client to. Phillips vs. Dobbins, 617.
BAIL. See Principal and Security, 6–7.
fund in hands of receiver under process of state court. Loudon, as-
signee, vs. Blandford & Garrard et al., 150.
months of adjudication, lose priority. Lien not revived by general
judgments thereafter obtained. Ibid.
months, and not sued again after dissolution of attachment because of
bankruptcy of defendant, ranks from date of lien. Ibid.
latter's interest is at an end, and claimants may divide among them-
brought fund into state court, must first dispose of that case before he
can claim. Ibid.
vs. Jones, 271.
and child, in state exemption laws, form no part of bankrupt system.
Farmer vs. Taylor et al., 559.
subsequent proceedings. Ibid.
ule nor notice given to him personally, publication in newspapers hav-
BANKS. See Corporations, 1, 2, 9.
as if executed in conformity thereto. Smith, governor, for use, vs.
2. Ordinary, whatever terms of bond, yet held to be for performance of
duties as clerk of ordinary. Therefore it cannot be sued for failure to
take security from tax collector. Ibid.
49th Ga. R.,685