INDEX. 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. ed as. 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 heir. Ibid. practicable, or right to recover forfeited. Sanders, adm'x, vs. Bell, 442. 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 22. AMENDMENT. 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. ATTACHMENT. 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. State, 503. 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 571. no authority to bind client to. Phillips vs. Dobbins, 617. BAIL. See Principal and Security, 6–7. BANKRUPT. 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. property. 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- Ibid. 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. BONDS. as if executed in conformity thereto. Smith, governor, for use, vs. . 54th 29th 6th 518 66 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.,685 149 462 500 553 152 87 400 607 178 678 2oth 556 21st 614 41st 78 Ioth 405 149 205 518 179 204 220 400 65 376 IIO 205 82 362 221 277 587 IIth 236 5th 178 22d 88 22d 607 . 46th 445 18th 426 3d 439 34 141 345 14 315 IIO 46th 90 520 28 66 . ad 2d Ist 42d 2d . 556 551h 55th 0 673 . |