Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Official entry made after dormancy and dated back, effect of.

Sprinz vs. Frank, 162.
Prescription, fraud to prevent title by, means actual fraud, not

legal. Ware vs. Barlow, 1(1).
Same: Hunt vs. Dunn, 74 Ga, 120, doubted and distin-

guished. Ibid. Purchaser from agent of two executors, though will named thrée,

gets good prescriptive title, when. Ibid. 1(16). Sale made on fraudulent misrepresentations of debtor, and 'fraudu

lent mortgage by him, and threatened sale, when make case for injunction and receiver. Wölfe vs. Claflin, 64(1).

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.

Trover to recover property conveyed for benefit of creditors, to de.

feat action, fraud of plaintiff must appear beyond a reasonable doubt. Conley vs. Thornton, 154.

GAINESVILLE.

Suit against "the mayor and council of the city of Gainesville,"

sustained under the terms of its charter. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(1).

GARNISHMENT.

City not subject to, for work done on municipal school-house.

Born vs. Williams, 796(1).
County of his residence, garnishee called to answer only in. West

v8. Harvey, 711.
Same: Main case in other county, something should be

filed to show connection, · Ibid, Dissolving, under act Oct. 15, 1885, not hinder debtor to set up that

debt was not subject. Born vs. Williams, 796(2):
Same: Debtor may insist on exemption, whether garnishee

does or not. Ibid. Exemptions; debts due physician, not exempt, though earned in

part by use of homestead property. Staples is. Keister, 772. Exemption ; debtor dissolving, under act Oct. 15, 1885,

may

insist on exemption though garnishee does not. Born vs. Wil

liams, 796(2). Exempt, salary of teacher in city public school is. Ibid. 800.

Same: So is debt due contractor working on school build

ing. Ibid. 796.

i

Service of, by serving copy, no law for. West v8. Harvey, 771.
Teacher in public schools of city, salary'exempt. Born 08. Williams,

800.

GOOD CHARACTER. See Charge of Court;. Evidence.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

HOLIDAYS. Fourth of July, courts may sit and render valid judg-

Hamer vs. Sears, 288.

ment on.

HOMESTEAD.

[ocr errors]

Dormant, judgment becoming, pending existence of, is so at expira-

tion of. Anderson vs. Kilgo, 699.

Same: Hart vs. Evans, 80 Ga. 330, distinguished. Ibid.
Produce, rents or profits” of, (22026) not include debts due physi-

cian though earned in part by use of exempt property.
Staples vs. Keister, 772.
Same: Wade vs. Weslow, 62 Ga. 562; Johnson 08. 'Franklin &

Whitney, 63 Ga. 378, and Kupferman vs. Buckholts, 73 Ga.

778, distinguished. Ibid.
Sale: purchaser gets good title, though homestead set apart to

widow with minor children, and deceased husband owed

no debts. Deylon vs. Bell, 370(1, 1a).
Sale: trustee or guardian applying for leave to sell, children must

be made parties. Ibid. 370(2).
Sale: widow applying for leave to sell need not join children.

Ibid.
Same Besides, they were made parties here, and guardian

ad litem, appointed, who assented, but after order granted.

Ibid. 370, 2a).
Sale: wife must join husband in application. . Ibid. 570 2).

Same: If applicant a widow, she need not join children

with her. Ibid.
Usury in mortgage with waiver' of, waiver void. "Small vs. Hicks,

691(1).
Same: Surety discharged where creditor' agreed to take

mortgage with waiver, and took usurious and void one.
Ibid.

Widow, with minor children, may have, in estate of her deceased

husband. Deyton vs. Bell, 370(1). -
Same: Application (in 1871) need not set out that husband

owed debts. Ibid.
Same: That he owed none, not make exemption void.

Ibid. 370(la).

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Deed on January 2, 1867, to husband as trustee for wife, vested title

in her at once. Lathrop vs. White, 29(1).
Same: Obtaining leave of chancellor to sell, not affect her

title. Ibid. 34(1). Separate estate, children of married woman who had, did not share

with their father prior to 1871. Ibid. 29(2).
Same: Wife dying in 1868 or 1869, her property descended

directly to her husband. Ibrd.
Same: Purchase money notes given to her for land were

inherited by the husband. Ibid. 29(2a). Same: Husband could pledge such notes as collateral se

curity for his debt. Ibid. Same: As to right of holder of such notes, after death of the

husband. Ibid. 29(3). Sexual intercourse with wife, husband killing to prevent, 24334

charged, when. Cloud vs. State, 449. Title of wife acquired from husband, verdict against, in favor of

creditors, not disturbed. Morgan vs. Swann, 207(1).
Same: Juries need no encouragement to vindicate wife's

title. Ibid. Transactions between, should be scanned with care, and bona fides of

secret contract between, must be clearly established.
Skellie vs. James, 419(1),
Same: Charge, "should, perhaps, be looked into a little

more closely," error. Ibid.
Same: Facts here required positive and stringent instruc-

tions. Ibid. 419(1a). Verdict against husband and wife for rent and damages sustained

here. Brinson vs. Lassiter, 43(3).
Same: The wife here purchased the land at tax sale under

an excessive levy. Ibid. Writ of possession against husband, wife cannot be removed from

her own land under. Jefferson vs. Hartley, 717.

ILLEGALITY.

Forthcoming bond: Breach of, necessary to show property adver-

tised, and had not been produced. Bowden vs. Taylor,
1994).
Same: Evidence of constable that it had been advertised,

and fi. fa. not paid, admissible. Ibid.
Forthcoming bond defective, officer should not accept it. Lytle vs.

De Vaughn, 228.

Same: But if he does so, it is amendable. Ibid.
Forthcoming bond for $300; suit for less than $100, justice court

has jurisdiction. Bowden vs. Taylor, 199(1).
Forthcoming bond: misdescription in, defendants getting possession

under, cannot take advantage of. Ibid. 199(2).
Forthcoming bond; no recovery on, until illegality disposed of.

Ibid. 199(3a).
Same: Original order of superior court dismissing not ad-

missible in justice court. Ibid. 199(3).
Forthcoming bond, suit on; attorneys' fees properly embraced in

judgment on, when. Bowden vs. Taylor, 204(2;.
Forthcoming bond to mortgage fi. fa. amendable at any stage of the

proceedings. Lytle vs. De Vaughn, 228,
Presumption is, in absence of affidavit, that all grounds apparent

were embraced. Bowden vs. Taylor, 204(1).
Same: If not then taken, could not be insisted on after-

wards. Ibid.
Res adjudicata, grounds made or which could have been made in

one first filed, are. Craig vs. Crosby, 650.
Verdict, none should be allowed, but illegality dismissed, where no

evidence admitted in support of. Sprinz vs. Frank, 164, 1).

IMPEACHMENT. See Witness.

INDICTMENT. See Criminal Law.

INDORSEMENT.

Bill of lading not in lorsed to plaintiff by party in whose favor

issued, no recovery. Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(3.
Forged, name of indorser of check. See Banks, and thereunder,

Forged indorsement.

INFANCY. See Minors.

INJUNCTION.

Alley, public, to restrain erection of house over, complainant's

land abutting, grant proper. Cohen vs Bank, 723. Discretion in denying not abused here. · McMekin v8. Richards, 192. Discretion in granting not controlled, when. East Rome Co. vs.

Cothran, 360(5, 6).
Discretion not abused in granting here. Baker is. Mills, 342.

Same: Proceeding was by creditor, not in judgment, set

ting up fraud of debtor; receiver was appointed. Ibid. Executor; injunction restraining him from using or disposing of

assets except as will directs, sustained. Powell vs. Ham-
mond, 567(1).
Same: Restraining sale of property which executor claimed

as his by gift of testator, proper, when. Ibid. 567(2). Fraud, charges of, denied: discretion in refusing to enjoin fi. fa. not

controlled. Craig vs. Crosby, 650. Judgment, bill to enjoin, for perjury of witness, should show what.

Wilson vs. Sullivan, 242. Law, power of courts of, to administer equitable remedies since acts

1884–5, p. 36, and acts 1887, p. 64, discussed. Manheim vs.

Claflin, 134. Order granting, to be construed in light of prayer. Powell v8. Ham

mond, 567(1). Refusal of, to test validity of charter of Toombsboro, under 23775 to

778, not error. Duncan v8 Mayor, 353. Sale on fraudulent misrepresentations, and fraudulent mortgage

made thereon by debtor, and threatened sale, makes case for, when. Wolfe vs. Claflin, 64(1).

INNOCENT PURCHASER. See Notice.

INSANITY.

Lunatic prima facie competent to make pauper affidavit, and enter

appeal, in suit brought by guardian. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 79. Presumption is in favor of sanity of witness examined by commis

sioners. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(4).
-Same: If disputed by other evidence, properly left to jury.

Ibid.

Witness examined by commissioners presumed competent. Ibid. 79.

Same: Lunatic prima facie competent to make pauper affi

davit and enter appeal ‘in suit brought by guardian. Ibid.

« PředchozíPokračovat »