Wade rs. Weslow & Company...... 62 "562...(distinguished)

Walker rs. Walker..........

66

61

362

363

68

73

66

535...

475, 671

54

66

451.

58

66

50....

14

242

126

93

284

21

393

66

43 325...(distinguished) 494

79

66

635.

Wingard rs. Tift......

24

Wingfield rs. Virgin....

51

179... 139

339

464

6

RULES.

The following rules have been adopted since those published in 78 Ga.

RULE 43. The time and labor of the court being taxed to the utmost in the transaction of the public business, any attorney who shall by gross negligence, or of wilful purpose, impose upon the court any needless or unnecessary labor or consumption of time, will be deemed in contempt and punished accordingly. This rule will apply to no doubtful matter, but only to such surplusage in bills of exceptions, briefs, briefs of evidence, arguments, etc., as come clearly within it. Hereafter there is to be no waste of work or time in transacting the public business appertaining to this court.

Adopted April 10, 1889.

RULE 44. No cause shall be heard where cost is due, until the cost is paid, and if not paid when the case is called, the same will be dismissed. The clerk shall see that this rule is observed. He will issue execution against the plaintiff in error and his counsel for any costs due and unpaid as soon as the case is disposed of.

Adopted September 24, 1889,

1. The declaration in the code that possession, to be the foundation of
prescription, must not originate in fraud, means such fraud as is
actual, moral fraud, as distinguished from legal fraud. Hunt et al.
vs. Dunn et al., 74 Ga. 120, doubted and distinguished.
(a) Where the evidence shows that defendant purchased the land in
question from the agent of two executors; that the power of attor
ney, under which the agent sold, recited that they were the execu-
tors of a testator, some of whose heirs at law are the plaintiffs, and
further recited that such executors, under his will, had the right to
sell this land, and contained no intimation that there was another
executor, or that the property in question was not mentioned in the
will; and the evidence further shows that defendant paid a large
sum of money for the land, went into immediate possession of it
and held it from that time up to the commencement of this litiga-
tion, claiming it in good faith; if the title he thus acquired was not
a good legal title, it was a mistake of law on his part and on the
part of the parties from whom he purchased, no actual fraud being
shown on the part of either.

(b) Even if defendant had looked at the will and found that three ex-
ecutors were appointed in it, and that this land was not mentioned
in it, it could hardly be held that he was guilty of a fraud if he had

101 165