missive, and not brought home to the knowledge of the
owner, does not constitute adverse possession. Ibid.
4. Adverse possessoin for seven years, creates a good title
under the Statute. Moody rs. Fleming,
5. Possession under color of title, is adverse. Ibid. See
also, Conyers vs. Kenan,
6. A grant from the State, though void, is color of title.
Ibid.
7. The Statute does not run against the State. Ibid.
8. What constitutes color of title. See Conyers vs. Kenan,
9. As to how far fraud is a good replication to the plea of
the Statute. Ibid.
10. As to extent of occupant's possession. Ibid.
See Amendment, 3. Indictment, 2.
1. To justify a Court in refusing on account of laches, it
must be gross. Mayor &c. of Savannah vs. The State, ex
rel. Green,
2. At Common Law, it is not a writ of right, but in Geor-
gia. Quere?
3. It will never be denied where the right is indisputable,
especially if statutory, and there is no other remedy.
Ibid. See also, Moody vs. Fleming,
4. Mandamus is in the nature of a suit. Moody vs. Fleming,
MONROE RAIL ROAD AND BANKING COMPANY.
1. The judgment of the Supreme Court, in "Collins vs.
The Central Bank, (1 Kelly, 435,) did not reverse in toto
the decree of the Circuit Court, settling the relative dig-
nity of the claims upon the fund arising from the sale of
the effects of the Company. Woodward vs. the Central
Bank, et al.,
2. The statutory lien of bill-holders, under the charter, at-
taches equally upon all the property and effects of that
Company, Ibid.
1. When the surety to a promissory note was indemni-
fied by a mortgage, and after the note became due, the
surety voluntarily gave his own note to the creditor in
full payment of the joint debt: Held, that the surety
might foreclose his mortgage, and collect what was ac-
tually due on the note in the hands of the original credi-
tor; and that the principal debtor was entitled to make
any defence which he could have made against such orig-
inal creditor. Mims vs. McDowell,
2. Under the Act of 1827, requiring mortgages to be re-
corded: Held, that the junior mortgagee with notice of the
prior lien, gains no preference by having his mortgage
recorded. Neal vs. Kerrs and Hope,
1. An entry on the motion docket is no part of the record.
Johnson vs. Bemis,
1. The Judges may make rules for new trials returnable
in vacation, where the application has first been made
in term and recorded. Johnson vs. Bemis,
2. A motion for a new trial will not be entertained, where
a brief of the testimony has not been filed. Hartridge
vs. Wesson,
3. Where the law and the facts are fairly submitted to the
Jury by the Court below, a new trial will not be grant-
ed. Craft vs. Jackson,
4. Although the issue be exclusively one of fact, and there
have been two concurrent verdicts, yet if the finding be
clearly against law, a new trial will be granted, especial-
ly where an important principle is involved, and the
verdict is to be followed by serious consequences to the
party against whom it is found. Chambers vs. Collier,
5. On a question of fraud, a new trial will not be granted
where there was evidence on both sides, and no rule of
law violated, nor manifest injustice done; although there
may appear to be a preponderance of evidence against
the verdict. Armis vs. Barker,
6. Where the verdict is without evidence,, or clearly against
evidence, the Court is bound to grant a new trial. Hall
vs. Page,
See Arson, 1. Charge of the Court, 1.
1. How far notice in a public newspaper, of the loss of a
negotiable paper, will affect a bona fide purchaser. Mat-
thews vs. Poythress,
See Bills of Exchange, 1. Mortgage, 2. Surety, 3, 4.
NOTICE OF SIGNING BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
See Practice Supreme Ct. 6.
1. Where a plea was filed of former recovery, (not being
a plea in bar,) Held, not necessary to set out the entire
record of the judgment of the Supreme Court, but only
so many of the leading facts as were relied on, in a dis-
tinct and issuable manner. Rice vs. Carey, Assignee, -
1. Extent of. See Limitation of Actions, 10.
2. Under the Act of 1833, requiring sheriffs and coroners
to put purchasers at sheriff's sales in possession of lands:
Held, if possession be not given immediately, or before
the next term of the Court, or before the officer making
the sale goes out of office, that it can only be done un-
der an order of the Court, with notice to the tenant.
Chambers vs. Collier,
3. When the purchaser enters into a subsequent agree-
ment with the defendant in execution, whereby he is
suffered to remain in possession, he is considered as hav-
ing waived his statutory right; and he cannot, upon the
failure of the defendant to comply with his contract, two
years and eight months afterwards, call on the officer to
put him in possession. lb.
PRACTICE, SUPERIOR COURT.
1. A libel should not be read to the Jury until the de-
fendant has cross-examined the witness proving its pub-
lication. Taylor vs. The State,
2. The Judge may make rules for new trials returnable
in vacation, where the application has first been made in
term and recorded. Johnson vs. Bemis,
3. Exceptions to the decision of the Court may be taken
at any time within the thirty days prescribed by law.
Carey vs. Alexander, Judge.
See Arrest of Judgment. New Trial.
1. Where there is no appearance for either party, the
writ of error will be dismissed. Smith rs. Justices, &c.
Randolph Co. -
2. Where the citation mis-recites the county in which the
writ of error is sued out, it will be amended on motion.
Armis vs. Barker,
3. A writ of error in the name of A. B. and others, is
fatally defective. Beall vs. Ex'rs of Fox,
4. Amendable by the record, if it prejudices the rights of
none of the parties thereto. Ibid.
5. Does not lie to errors of fact in the decree of the Jury.
Beall & Scott vs. Rowell,
6. Writ of error will be dismissed, if notice of the signing
of the Bill of Exceptions and copies of the Writ of Er-
ror and citation are not served within the time required
by the Act organizing the Supreme Court, and the 21st
Rule of Court. Ibid.
7. Writ of error will be dismissed, if proper parties are
|