Nulla bona, entry of; made after dormancy, and dated back so as to
revive, is not only void but villainous. Sprinz vs. Frank,
162(4).

Same: Open to question by parol evidence. Ibid. 162(2).
Nulla bona, traverse of entry of, officer need not be made a party.
Ibid. 162.

Receipt for costs, to sheriff, entered by magistrate on fi. fa, pre-
vents dormancy. Gholston vs. O'Kelley, 19.

Transferee can only enforce it for amount due on it, for which it
was transferred to him. Satterfield vs. Boyd, 316.

Same: Defendant cannot, by agreement, increase amount,
so as to affect third persons. Ibid.

EXECUTOR DE SON TORT. See Administrators and Executors.

FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.

Machinery defective and delayed, right to recoup damages not
waived by receiving and using. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins,
94(7).

Same: Nor will sale of oil-mill defeat right to recoup
against contract price of such machinery. Ibid.

Machinery defective in kind, and delivery delayed beyond time
stipulated, are both matters for reducing contract price.
Ibid. 93(1).

FEE SIMPLE. See Estates.

FELLOW-SERVANTS. See Master and Servant,

FENCE. See Stock-Law.

FERTILIZERS.

Analysis, information from, made by witness himself, admissible,
but not from others, or from effect on crops. Patterson
vs. Ramspeck, 808,3a).

Analysis on each sack guaranteed, sale by, not error to reject
representations of agent as to grade and ingredients. Ibid.
808(1).

Same: If representations made from circular, circular
should be produced. Ibid. 808(1a).

Hearsay as to analyses by State chemist, and as to dissatisfac-
tion of others in use of it, inadmissible. Ibid. 808.

Verdict here for plaintiff sustained by the evidence. Maddox vs.

Cole, 325(1).

Waiver, none will estop buyer from pleading against seller want of
legal inspection. Faircloth vs. De Leon, 158.

FINES AND FORFEITURES.

County not entitled to share in distribution of.

Harris, 719.

Gordon County vs.

Insolvent costs, how distributed in payment of. Ibid.

FORGERY. See Deeds.

Bond for title signed by pretended agent, without authority, is a
forgery, and is good color of title. Millen vs. Stines, 655.

Same: Simmons vs. Lane, 25 Ga. 178, distinguished. Ibid.
Indorsement of check. See Banks, and thereunder, Forged in-
dorsement.

FORMER ACQUITTAL. See Criminal Law.

FORMER CONVICTION. See Criminal Law.

FORMER RECOVERY. See Pleadings.

FORTHCOMING BONDS. See Attorney's Fees; Illegality.

FRAUD. See Possessory Warrant; Statute of Limitations.
Administrator, between, and first vendee, not affect title of subse-
quent one without notice. King vs. Cabaniss, 662(3).
Bill of lading, indorsee of, not affected by fraud of consignor in deal-
ings with consignee. Boatmen's Bank vs. Western & Atlan-
tic Railroad, 221(2).

Good faith, court should leave to jury, but failure not cause re-
versal where verdict demanded, Ware vs. Barlow, 2(2a).
Husband, secret contract by, with wife, bona fides must be clearly
established. Skellie vs. James, 419(1).

Injunction, refusal of; discretion of chancellor not controlled,
where charges of, denied. Craig vs. Crosby, 650.

In pari delicto: defendant holding under grantee of an alleged
fraudulent conveyance from plaintiff, to defeat trover suit
must show fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Conley vs.
Thornton, 154(1).

Same: This defence is recognized for the sake of the pub-
lic, not of the defendant. Ibid.

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 distin-
guished. Ibid.

Purchaser from agent of two executors, though will named three,
gets good prescriptive title, when. Ibid. 1(1b).

Sale made on fraudulent misrepresentations of debtor, and fraudu-
lent 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 de-
feat action, fraud of plaintiff must appear beyond a rea-
sonable 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. Cald
well, 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

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. 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 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, (32026) 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, la).

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.

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 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, 4334
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.