« PředchozíPokračovat »
O’Shields vs. The State of Georgia.
introduce a new man upon this hotly contested issue. Besides, it is remarkable that if he stood in four feet of O'Shields, that the latter did not see him and have him sworn on the trial. He knew O'Shields, he swears, and we suppose the policeman knew him. Why, then, did he not subpæna him? It is remarkable, too, that Miller did not go up to the corpse at the time the others did. Who is Miller ? It is well, as remarked by Judge BLECKLEY in the case of Young vs. The State, decided this morning, that in these times some proof of the identity and respectability of witnesses whose testimony is newly discovered, and who appear only by affidavit, and are not seen in person by either court or jury, should be produced to fortify the motion on this ground.
It is needless to add that the court committed no error in providing for the wants of the jury in respect to medicines and necessaries; and that in recharging the jury at their request upon a point of law which troubled them, it is not imperative upon him to go over his whole charge again.
We have thought much over this case, and have given it that attention which its importance demanded. The credibility of the witnesses was for the jury; the conflict was to be reconciled by them; they have weighed and considered and passed upon it; there is enough in the record to authorize their verdict; the law has been given substantially and fully to them; no error has been committed by the court which, in our judgment, injured the defendant; he has had a fair trial, and we feel constrained to let the verdict stand.
ACCOMPLICE. See Criminal Law, 14-16, 49-51.
ACTION. 1. Where the substance of a long correspondence was, that defendant
agreed to pay a definite sum for execution against third person, the fi fa. to remain the property of plaintiffs until paid for, then to be transferred without recourse, and defendant failed to comply with the undertaking, an action was maintainable on the correspondence.
Kimbell vs. Moreland et al., ex'rs, 164. 2. If one indicted for larceny, pay sum alleged to have been stolen, he
cannot recover it after acquittal. Puckett vs. Roquemore, 235. 3. If payment be made under agreement that prosecution shall be settled,
the law will leave parties where it finds them. Ibid. 4. Purchase money of goods sold to defraud creditors cannot be collected.
Heineman vs. Newman, 262. 5. “Gentlemen: In reply to your favor of the 22d inst., you will please
to withdraw your draft of $314 37 upon me, as I cannot pay for the present. As soon as I have the money I shall remit." Too indefinite
to sustain action. Sedgwick, assignee, vs. Gerding, 264. 6. No cause of action at commencement of suit, recovery cannot be had
on one subsequently accruing. Wadley, Jones & Co. vs. Jones, 329;
Fones vs. Lavender, 228. 7. Suit on an account in name of original creditor for use of another, no
concern of debtor whether it has been assigned to usee or not, unless necessary to some ground of defense. Gilmore vs. Bangs, for use,
403 8. Failure of senior mortgagee to apply payment to mortgage as directed
by mortgagor, not give right of action to junior mortgagee. Sims vs. Lester et al., adm'rs, 620.
ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS. 1. Land is fully administered when turned over to heir on final settlement.
Judgment thereafter obtained against administrator by creditor has no
direct lien thereon. Jones vs. Parker, 12. 2. Creditors can follow assets into hands of distributee as well in a court of
law as in a court of equity, provided there are the requisite pleadings.
Ibid. s. Legatee cannot "plead legacy as set off to suit by executor, unless he
shows estate in a condition to be distributed. Dobbs vs. Prothro et al.,
ex'rs, 73 4. Proof of representative character unnecessary where no plea of ne un.
ques administrator was filed. Merritt, adm’r, vs. Cot. States Life In
surance Co., 103. 5. Witness, administrator is competent to show by debts of estate, other
than his own, necessity to sell land; also, his acts and state of accounts, but not to prove any debt due to him from intestate arising from partnership between them, or otherwise. Finch vs. Creech et al., 124.
6. Though judgment de bonis be conclusive on executor in court of law,
yet equity, upon statement showing facts transpiring since judgment
rebutted, will interfere. Gause vs. Walker, ex'r, 129.
admr, vs. Bessman, 187.
it is valid, though “as” be not prefixed to “administrator.” Fry vs.
Shehee, 208 ; Dorsey, ex'r, vs. Black, 315.
parted by statutes of this state. Turner et al., adm’rs, vs. Linam, 253.
the appointment of the administrator merely, no compliance with
Code, sections 2014, 2015. Ibid.
of his intestate. Ibid.
his official bond as clerk. McNeal et al., vs. Smith, gov., 313.
lected by him after dismission. Hambrick vs. Crawford, 335.
homestead before grant of letters. Killen et al., ex'rs, vs. Marshall,
shall be done by commissioners appointed by ordinary. Minors who
ratify when of age, are bound. Hatcher et al. vs. Cade, 359.
band incumbered title, but not of liens which adhered thereto when
he acquired title. Murphy vs. Vaughan, adm'r, 361.
at mere election of legatee after years of acquiescence. Sale prima
facie valid. New et al., vs. Potts, ex'r, 420.
right of action on bond of temporary administrator. Webster et al.
vs. Thompson, adm'r, et al., 431.
as against creditors, depart from due course of administration. Ames
vs. Cameron, 449.
tees, does so at his own risk as against creditors, whether notice of
claims was presented within twelve months or not. Ibid.
set forth, amendable. Bank of Americus vs. Rogers, 29; Kennedy
& Morrow, for use, vs. Vandiver, 171.
returned into court. Story et al. vs. Flournoy, McGehee & Co., 56.
known to officer, such entry may be made nunc pro tunc. Gwinn vs.
embraced in amendment, was likely to be used on trial, surprise from
5. In proceeding to verify attachment bond under section 3271 of Code,
amount sued for cannot be reduced, by amendment, to conform to suf-
vs. de Neufville et al., 454.
de Neufville et al., 454.
no question of amendment can be entertained, except to make bond
conform to sufficiency of bond. Ibid.
directed to dismiss levy. Ibid.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
charge of that case does so under original contract as to fees. Ibid.
heavier than had been contemplated, and he would charge additional
original contract. Ibid.
prosecution. Fox vs. Davis & Company, 298.
in charge. McMath vs. State, 303.
that included ground was sufficient, not legal excuse for omission from
in his opinion. Hambrick vs. Crawford, 335.
for fees. Daly et al. vs. Hines & Hobbs, 470.
were rendered, pertinent in graduating fees; what it was several years
later is irrelevant. Ibid.
Burton vs. Wynne, 615.
issue of law or fact, too vague for intelligent exception. Should be
ant's petition in bankruptcy (with adjudication thereon,) in which
property levied on is claimed as exempt. Wheeler vs. Redding, 87.
for purchase money was levied on November 29th, 1867, and sale had
Williams vs. Harkins, 172.
Bangs, for use, 403.
no ground of. Suspending proceedings differs from dismissing. Bal-
lin & Company et al. vs. Ferst & Company et al., 546.
posed of same persons, bankruptcy of one firm covers debts and assets
of both. Ibid.
valid. That act is still of force. Ibid.
Bush vs. Lester et al., administrators, 599.
of state. Ibid.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE. See Negotiable Instruments, 5, 6, 8.
CARRIERS. See Insurance, 11, 13.
CASES CITED. (The page shows where cited.)
54th Ga. R., 172