Open cars, machinery shipped on, by agreement of shipper, carrier
not liable. Western & Atlantic vs. Exposition Mills, 524(36) ·

Same: But if diligence, during a detention, required cov-

ering, liable for failure to cover.

Ibid.

"Owner's risk," goods shipped at, no defence against negligence or
unreasonable delay. Ibid. 524(3a).

Presumption, none exists that one road has leased other, when.
Dunlap vs. Richmond & Danville Railroad, 136(2).

Purchase of stock in other road, even if illegal, minority stock-
holders concluded by long acquiescence.
Alexander rs.

Searcy, 536(1).

Purchasing, owning and voting stock in another railroad, illegal as
to the public. Ibid. 536(1b).

Same: Stockholders dissatisfied must complain promptly,
but State may at any time. Ibid.

Same: Stockholders becoming such after the illegal act,
cannot complain. Ibid. 537(3).

Right of way, dominion over, and over trains and tracks, absolute
as private owner. Fluker vs. Georgia Railroad, 461(1).

Same: Corporation may exclude seller of lunches to pas-
sengers.

Ibid.

Rope furnished to well-digger breaking, no liability, when. Reid
vs. Central Railroad, 694.

Settlement with employé hurt by paying him his wages only, where
under a (death warrant) contract he was to receive wages
and damages as agreed in case of injury, held nudum pactum
and no bar. Carlton vs. Western & Atlantic, 531(3).

Strike of employés, prompt delivery prevented by; duty and lia-
bility of carrier in such cases stated. Haas vs. Kansas
City Railroad, 792(1).

Through freight contract, what facts will show, prima facie. Atlanta
& West Point Railroad es. Texas Grate Co. 602(6'.

Track of other road, engineer hurt while driving engine over,
master not liable, when. Dunlap vs. Richmond & Danville
Railroad, 136(1.

Trespass by employés of subcontractor, in cutting timber, defend-
ant not liable for. Parker vs. Waycross Railroad, 388(6).

Undisclosed principal may sue, but pleading must be shaped to
meet proof of agency, and agency must be shown. Atlanta
& West Point Railroad vs. Tex 18 Grate Co. 602(2).

Verdict for $500 for pain and confinement, is not excessive. Atlanta
& West Point Railroad vs. Smith, 620(2).

Whistle blown to frighten animal and not to keep it from going on
track, court may charge as to, when. Central Railroad vs.
Hollinshead, 203(1).

RATIFICATION. See Minors.

Contract under seal made by agent, when his individual contract.
Florida Midland Railroad vs. Varnedoe, 176(7).

Same: As to ratification or adoption by corporation. Ibid.

RECEIVERS.

Creditor, though not a judgment creditor, may, under certain cir-
cumstances, resort to equity. Wolfe vs. Claflin, 65.

Fraud in purchaser of goods appearing, chancellor should look at
whole case and grant, if ends of justice require it. Ibid.
64(2).

Same: Discretion in granting was properly exercised here.
Ibid.

Lien of highest dignity, court erred in refusing to order payment
out of fund in hands of. Akerman vs. Moon, 688.

Sale procured by fraud of purchaser, and fraudulent mortgage by
him, chancellor should appoint, when. Wolfe vs. Claflin,
64(1).

RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY. See Criminal Law.

RECORD. See Notice.

Gartrell vs.

Sale with reservation of title not executed and recorded properly,
claim for rent contracted after, prevails over.
Clay, 327.

REDEMPTION. See Deeds; Tax; Tender.

REMAINDERS. See Estates.

RENT. See Crops.

Transferee of rent note (acts 1882-3, p. 109), special lien of, dis-
cussed. Andrew vs. Stewart, 53(2).

Same: Though transferred before crop planted, and as col-
lateral security, holder protected. Ibid.

RES ADJUDICATA.

Illegality, grounds made or which could have been made in one first
filed, are. Craig vs. Cosby, 650.

RESCISSION. See Sales.

Fraud of debtor in purchasing furnishes ground for. Manheim vs.
Claflin, 134(2).

Purchase money note for mule, reserving title; if seller transfers it,
he cannot recover in trover without a surrender of the note.
Tidwell vs. Burkett, 84.

Same: Bringing the action is equivalent to a rescission.
Ibid.

RES GESTÆ. See Criminal Law; Evidence.

Adultery; evidence showing opportunity and the res gestæ of its con-
tinuance, admissible. Gardner vs. State, 149(3).

Declarations which are part of, admissible. Cook vs. Pinkerton, 89(3).
Same: Where horses were swapped, and one party wrong-
fully resumed possession, conversations admissible.
Ibid.

REVOCATION. See License.

RULES OF SUPERIOR COURT.

45. Fraud in mortgages alleged by attaching creditors, have they
right to open and conclude? Moore vs. Broum, 13(3).

Same: Accorded to wrong party, not reversible error,
when. Ibid.

RULES OF SUPREME COURT. See Rules 43 and 44, opposite page 1.

SALES. See Administrators and Executors; Injunction.

Acceptance of seller's offer must be without any conditions added.
Robinson vs. Weller, 704.

Correspondence, saie by; offer of seller must be accepted unequivo-
cally, unconditionally, and without variance of any sort.
Ibid.

Conditional, not duly recorded, stands as to subsequent creditors of
purchaser as an absolute sale. Steen vs. Harris, 681(1).
Rescission, attachment against purchaser levied after, falls. Ibid.

681(4).

Rescission may be made by mutual consent, though purchase
money notes transferred, when. Ibid. 681(2).

Rescission, when complete. Ibid. 681(3).

Reservation of title. See Judgments.

Reservation of title, property sold with, is subject to claim for rent
contracted after, if not executed and recorded properly.
Gartrell vs. Clay, 327.

Same: Conder vs. Holleman, 71 Ga. 93, and Cohen vs. Candler,

79 Ga. 427, distinguished Ibid. 331.

Sample; evidence that clerk was sent for a particular sample and
he returned with it, admitted. Wilson vs. Coleman, 297(2).
Warranty of soundness of mule, suit on; verdict for defendant sus-
tained by the evidence. Newman vs. Keith, 356.

SEAL.

Writing is under, if recited in body that seal is used or contem-
plated, or that a scrawl or any other mark affixed. Stansell
vs. Corley, 453(1).

Same: Printed L. S following signature sufficient. Ibid.

SEARCH. See Criminal Law.

SELLING OR FURNISHING LIQUOR TO MINOR. See Criminal

Law.

SEPARATE ESTATE. See Laws.

SERVICE.

Garnishment, service of, by serving copy, no law for.
Harvey, 711.

West vs.

SET-OFF.

Damages arising from a tort cannot be set off to suit on contract.

Green vs. Combs, 210.

Maker of note given heir for her interest, she deeding it, said note
"to be paid when he got possession," due when administra-
tor sold land and maker bought it. James vs. Hutcherson,
451.

Same: Purchaser entitled to her part of proceeds of the
sale, and if he failed to get it, might set off against note.
Ibid. 452(a).

SETTLEMENT.

Charge of court as to confidential relations and fraud, error where
evidence showed settlement with full knowledge. Conyers
vs. Graham, 615(3).

Evidence here established a, and it was error to allow plaintiff to
go behind. Ibid. 615(1, 2).

SIMPLE LARCENY. See Criminal Law.

SHERIFFS.

Bond, sheriff and sureties may be sued on, for his official misconduct,
before recovery against him. Jefferson vs. Hartley, 716.
Traverse of entry of nulla bona, officer need not be made a party.
Sprinz vs. Frank, 162 3 .

Writ of possession, wrongful eviction under, sheriff and sureties
liable on bond. Jefferson vs. Hartley, 716(1).

Same: No preliminary recovery against sheriff requisite.
Ibid.

SHERIFF'S SALE.

Void for excessive levy and in sufficient description, when. Brin-
vs. Lassiter, 40(1), 412).

SOLICITORS-GENERAL.

Fines and forfeitures, extent of right to participate in distribution
of, stated. Gordon County vx. Harris, 719.

Jail fees, duty of, to put in bill for, and collect, in solvent cases.
Ibid.

Return of indictments into court, have no authority to make.
Bowen vs. State, 483.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

Titles, bill to compel making of, dismissal where complainants had
not performed as to paying purchase money. Askew vs.
Carr, 685(1).

Titles, making of, not compelled, where description of land in bill
vague and uncertain. Ibid.

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

Ambiguity in memorandum of sale, parol admissible to explain.
Wilson vs. Coleman, 297(1).

Same: 3 "C. L. R. P. oats" shown to mean 3 car-loads
Texas rust proof oats. Ibid.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Falsehood of cotton factor, that he had paid proceeds to third per-
son, not avoid bar, where plaintiff negligent in discovering.
Marler vs. Simmons, 614.