1. The owner of property out of possession, can only recover
in an action of Trespass, for an injury done to the reversion.
Johnson et al. vs. Lovett...
1. A person dying intestate, and leaving, as his sole heir at
law, an infant child, no collateral relative of that child has
a legal right, by reason of such relationship, to administra
tion on the estate of the intestate. The legal right is in
the infant. Watson vs. Warnock.....
2. In a contest for administration in such a case between two
collateral kinsmen of the infant, before the Superior Court,
on appeal from the Ordinary, a judgment of the Superior
Court between the same parties in a contest for the guard-
ianship of the infant, awarding the guardianship to one of
them, is admissible as evidence, to aid the Jury in the pro-
per exercise of their discretion, and it is not error in the
Court to charge the Jury that they should consider that
judgment in making their verdict. Ibid.
3. To protect a voluntary division made by the distributees
of an estate who are at the time all sui juris, after the lapse
of twenty or thirty years, an administration will be pre-
sumed. Desverges vs. Desverges....
1. Where the signing of the declaration is imperfect, it is cura-
ble, even under the Act of 1818, provided there be a good
cause of action set out in the declaration. The time for
such trifling is past.
Tatum et al. vs. Allison, Anderson & Co....
2. A declaration in favor of a Sheriff, against a purchaser at Sheriff's sale, may be amended, so as to include as usees in the action the names of plaintiffs in execution, which were omitted by accident or mistake. Glenn vs. Black et al.... 393
1. When a party, desiring to appeal, pays the costs, tenders security, and demands an appeal from the Clerk during the Term at which the judgment was rendered, and the appeal be not entered, from the fault of the Clerk, the Court, on application, will order the appeal to be entered nunc pro tunc. Holt vs. Edmonson...
2. A party not appealing from a first verdict, is bound by it. Pierce vs. Chapman et al....
1. A case stated, in which it was Held,
1. That a bill of review did not lie to correct the errors of the award or judgment.
2. That the attorney and solicitors of complainant had power to make the reference under the sanction of the Court, without the consent of complainant.
3. It was not error in the arbitrators to settle the accounts between the defendant and husband of complainant, especially as such settlement inured to the benefit of complainant.
4. That it was no error for the next friend of complainant to sign and agree to said submission, and that he did so, only made it the more perfect.
5. In arbitrations, other than those provided for by the arbitration Act of 1856, the rule prescribed by that Act, that the arbitrators may settle compensation for their services, may be adopted by the Court as a proper rule in like cases.
6. It was no error in the arbitrators in the case to pay off the balance due to defendant with the negroes on which the advances and debts were contracted, or to allow a credit for the hire of complainant's negroes, when complainant has received the corresponding benefit from the advances made and the surplus left.
7. It is not compound interest to add interest on the bal-
ance up to the credit and deduct the credit from the sum of
principal and interest, and then to add interest on balance,
&c., when the credit exceeds the interest, &c.; but such rule
is the one prescribed by the Statute.
8. As the arbitration was not under the arbitration Act of
1856, it was not error not to furnish the parties with co-
pies of the award.
9. The children of complainant having no interest in the
matters in arbitration, it was not necessary that they should
be parties, nor have their interest been affected by the award.
10. There was no error in allowing defendant and the hus-
band of complainant to be sworn as witnesses in the arbitra-
tion, neither having sworn to anything untrue, or prejudicial
to complainant.
11. The award being in the highest degree beneficial to com-
plainant, ought not to be disturbed. Wade vs. Powell......
2. S. and H. agreed to submit matters in litigation between
them to the arbitration of certain persons named, who, "as
arbitrators, should settle, adjudicate and pass upon the afore-
said several matters in controversy, under the provisions
and regulations of an Act, entitled, an Act to authorize per-
sons to submit controversies to arbitration," approved March
5th, 1856: Held, that the award, to be good, must be uuani-
mous, notwithstanding the arbitration was not had until
after the passage of the amendatory Act of 12th of Decem-
ber, 1859, making the agreement of two of the arbitrators
to the award, under that Act, sufficient.
Hopper vs. Stephens..
1. An attorney or solicitor of a party may, under the sanc-
tion of the Court, refer a cause to arbitration, without his
client's consent. Wade vs. Powell.....
2. A writ may be signed by an attorney in fact of the plain-
tiff. Tatum et al. vs. Allison, Anderson & Co....
See Witnesses, 1. Continuance 1.
1. The defendant hired from the plaintiff a horse to perform
a journey. While he had as yet performed but a small part
of the journey, the horse was discovered to be sick. De-
fendant's attention was called to the condition of the horse,
who continued his journey, and at the end, the horse died:
Held, that defendant is liable to the plaintiff.
1. The charter of a bank, granted by Act of the General As
sembly of Georgia, is a public Act, and Courts must take ju-
dicial cognizance of it, in all cases, without having been spe-
cially given in evidence.
Davis et al. vs. Bank of Fulton......
2. Where a clause in a bank charter authorizes the joining in
one action of all parties to a note or bill given to be negoti
ated, or actually negotiated in that bank, such joinder is
proper. Ibid.
3. Such a clause in a bank charter is not unconstitutional, be
cause not expressly recited in the title of the Act of corpora-
tion.
4. By the 9th section of the charter of the Planters' & Me-
chanics' Bank of Dalton, it is declared that "the bills ob-
ligatory and of credit, notes and other contracts whatever,
in behalf of said corporation, shall be binding upon the said
Company: Provided the same be signed by the President
and countersigned by the Cashier of said corporation; and
the funds of said corporation shall in no case be liable for
any contract er engagement whatever, unless the same be
signed and countersigned as aforesaid:" Held, that bank-
bills, signed by a Vice-President, and countersigned by an
Assistant Cashier, there being a regular President and
Cashier in office at the time, discharging their respective du-
ties, are not binding on the corporation.
Planters' & Mechanics' Bank of Dalton vs. Erwin....................... 371
1. Mere weakness of mind, if the person be legally compos
mentis, is no ground for setting aside a contract.
Maddox vs. Simmons & Griffin......
2. The Law, in fixing the standard of legal competency to
contract, has taken a low standard of capacity. Ibid.
3. Imbecility and eccentricity of mind not the same. Ibid.
|