Volume 101 — Alabama Reports

Appkal from the City Court of Decatur. Tried before the Hon. W. H. Simpson. This was an action brought by Kavanaugh Brothers to recover of the Tennessee River Transportation Company $675, the value of a barge alleged to have been rented by the defendant under a contract, that if it failed to return the barge in as good condition as it was when received by the transportation company, it was to pay plaintiffs $675. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Heard before the Hon. Ti-ios. Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed by S. M. Hanby, as receiver of the Southern District Telegraph & Electric C omp any, against th e Florence Gas,Electric Light & Power Company, and prayed to have enforced upon the property of the defendant a mechanic's and material-man's lien in favor of the plaintiff, and also for the specific performance of a contract entered into by the two corporations.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This was an action on the case brought by the appellee against the appellant; and sought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant or its employes, while the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as an engineer. The complaint originally contained but one count; but two others were added by way of amendment. The second count was afterwards withdrawn.

Heard before the Hon. II. A. Sharpe. T3ie proceedings in this case were instituted by a petition filed by the appellee, T. C. McDonald, in the city court of Birmingham, in which he prayed for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the appellant, David J. Fox, as mayor of the city of Birmingham, commanding him to administer to the petitioner the oath of office as chief of police for that city.

Tried before the Hon. John M. Chilton, Special Judge. This action was brought by J. L. Hall and L. B. Farley, as trustees, against the appellant, W. C. Bibb, Jr., and counted on a promissory note, given by the defendant to the Alabama Midland Railway Company, for the amount of his subscription toy the capital stock of said company.

Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard. Tbis action was brought by tbe appellant, Geo. P. Heard, against tbe appellees ; and sought to recover damages for tbe breach of a replevy bond given by tbe appellees, J. A. Hicks, C. B. Hicks and J. E. Hicks, as principals, and - the other defendants as sureties, conditioned to return tbe property sued for in a detinue suit brought by Heard against the principals, if tbe defendants were cast in said suit.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This was an action of trover instituted by Mrs. Charlotte Thompson lingers against John D. Brooks on… Held: and claimed right of possession to said plantation described therein, from which the said trees were alleged to have been severed and converted into wood, for the value of which the suit is prosecuted; and that the plaintiff had commenced an action of ejectment in this court against the said defendant herein for the possession of…

Tried before the Hon. T. M. Arrington. The appellants recovered a judgment against the Montgomery Furnace & Chemical Company, on which a garnishment was duly issued and served upon W. F. Joseph. Joseph, the garnishee, had previously subscribed for one thousand dollars of the first mortgage bonds to be issued by the defendant.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Simpson. The original bill in this case was filed on February 12, 1891, to foreclose a mortgage, executed by V. L. Austin and wife, Elizabeth Austin, .to John D. Rather on February 12, 1884, and which mortgage was transferred by said Rather to B. F. Bean on March 26, 1885. The said transferee, B. F. Bean, died, and the executor of his last will and testament, L. G. Bean, is the complainant in the present suit.

Tried before the IJon. James B. Head. This was an action on the case, brought by the appellee, Hannah Jacobs, as the administratrix of the estate of Peter Jacobs, deceased, against the Birmingham Mineral Railroad Company, and sought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful and negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate.

Tried before the PIou. W. P. Chitwood. This was an action brought by J. C. Goodloe, as receiver of the Florence National Bank, against J. A. Hauerwas, Louis Levin and Osworth Breuss ; and was founded on a promissory note. The defendants, by special plea, setup the defense that the plaintiff was a banker doing business in the State of Alabama, and that it discounted said note at a greater rate of interest than 8 per cent, in violation' of the penal statutes of Alabama.

Tried before the Hon. B. F. Cassady . This was an action brought by the appellee, Effie ■ Hastings, against H. C. Marks & Co., a partnership composed of H. C. Marks and Sol Edel; and sought to recover from the defendants as a firm and as individuals damages for maliciously, and without probable cause, causing the plaintiff to be arrested under a warrant charging her with larceny.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill-in this case was filed by the appellant, Hiram Mulloy, against the appellee, Duncan Cook, to enjoin the prosecution by the respondent of an action of ejectment against the complainant, and to have the legal title to lands involved in such such suit divested out of said Cook and invested in the complainant.

Heard before the Hon. P. C. Walker. Charles J. Mitchell, the appellee, filed his petition in the probate court asking for a sale, for distribution, of - certain lands, which were averred to be owned jointly by himself and the appellant, C. H. Mitchell. C. H. Mitchell filed a plea in abatement to the petition, setting up the fact that she was the wife of the petitioner, and that the lands were owned jointly by them, and was their homestead.

Tried before the Hon. James B. Head. This was a statutory action of ejectment brought by the appellee against the appellants; and sought to recover certain described property.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Tayloe. The bill in this case was filed on July 18, 1892, by the Alabama National Bank of Mobile, against William H. Carmen and Peter Begg, as partners, under the firm name of Carmen & ’Begg, The Commercial .Printing Company, a corporation, Edwin Colburn, The St. Louis Paper Company, a corporation, and W. H. Holcombe, the sheriff of Mobile county.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants against the appellees in the chancery court of Clay county, and prayed to have the administration of the estate of James E. Mayes, deceased, removed into the chancery court of Clay county, from the probate court of Talladega county and to hold the sureties on the administration bond of J. W. King, as administrator of James E. Mayes’ estate, responsible for an alleged devastavit.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. John H. Sneed sued Andrew H. Green in detinue for the possession of certain personal property, to which he claimed title under and by virtue of a mortgage executed by the defendant, the law day of which had passed.

Pleard before the Eton. W. H. Tayloe . The bill in this case was filed on February 24, 1892, by O. W. Barrow, as surviving partner of the firm of 0. W. Barrow & Bro., and several other creditors of Bernard Moog, against the said Bernard Moog, Delpliine Moog, his wife, and Frank Hemly, the surviving partner of the firm of Haas & Hemly.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This was a statutory claim suit' instituted by Charles L. Rodenberg claiming a certain portion of a stock of goods, which had been levied on under an attachment issued at the instance of H. B. Claflin Co. against F. S. & H. Rosenberg. .The evidence, as shown by the bill of exceptions, tends to show that F. S. &H. Rosenberg, who were doing a mercantile business in Selma, Ala., were, on January 20, 1891, indebted to H. B. Claflin Co. in the…

Appkal from tlie Circuit Court of DeKalb. Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. This was an action brought by the appellee, W.M. Dobbs, against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of the plaintiff’s child by one of the defendant’s trains. As originally filed the complaint contained six counts. Two others were afterwards added by amendment.

Tried before the Hon. LeRoy F. Box. This was a statutory action of ejectment brought by ¥m. A. Yancey against the Savannah & Western Railroad Co., and sought to recover certain property specifically described in the complaint. There was a plea of the general issue.

Heard before the Hon. H. C. Speake. The appeal in this caséis prosecuted from a judgment refusing to grant a writ of mandamus, directed to Thomas J. Taylor, judge of probate of Madison county, and dismissing the petition for such writ, which was filed by the appellant, R. H. Medlin. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited Ex, parte State Bar Association, 92 Ala. Il3, 8 So. Rep. 768 ; Keyser’s Case, 58 Cal. 315 ; People v. Edmonds, 15 Barb.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This was an attachment suit, brought originally by the B. Goodman Manufacturing Company against the Southern Suspender Company, to recover an amount due the plaintiff on a promissory note. William Frieder, the appellant, was afterwards made a party defendant, as being the sole owner of the stock of the defendant company.

Tried before the Hon. W. P. Chitwood. This was an action brought by the appellee, Mary W. Slater, against the appellant corporation to recover the value of goods, which had been deposited in a warehouse at Sheffield, Alabama, for shipment on the defendant’s line of boats.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was originally filed by the appellant, N. C. Baker against Willis Graves and R. E. Brinson ; and sought to have foreclosed a mortgage given by Graves to Pritchett & Merriwether,which was transferred by them to complainant. The original bill set up that Brinson, the landlord, had waived certain rights pertaining to the landlord’s lien in favor of the mortgagee.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpahden. The bill in this case was filed on October 3, 1889, by the appellee, Bathsheba Gordon against George Whisenant; and prayed to have specifically enforced an alleged parol agreement, by the respondent for the re-conveyance of certain lands, and for an injunction restraining the execution of a judgment recovered in favor of the respondent against the complainant in an action of ejectment.

Tried before the Hon W. W. Wilkerson. This was an action brought by the appellee against the appellant, and counted upon two promissory notes given by the1 defendant to the plaintiff. The case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.

Tried before the Hon. James R. Dowdell. This was an action of trespass, brought by the appellee, James R. Williams, against the appellant, W. W. Wadsworth, to recover damages for cutting and carrying away timber and wood from the lands, which were alleged to be the property of the plaintiff; and was commenced on March 7, 1891.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The commission of the trespass vel non by the respondents in this case depended upon the validity of their claim of title to the property upon which the trespass was alleged to have been committed. A court of chancery had no jurisdiction to determine the issue, and the parties should have been remitted to a court of law for its determination.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, S. Brown, as assignee, to haye the chancery court take jurisdiction of, and administer, a trust created by a deed… Held: in lieu of the goods, subject to any priority of lien that the said landlord might have. None of the creditors or beneficiaries under the deed of assignment were made parties defendant, except A. Dreher, who was a resident of this State.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. On February 18, 1887, W. E. Bates became indebted to Mary Morris ; and on his failure to pay said indebtedness, she brought suit against him and obtained judgment thereon in the sum of $100, on April 26, 1890.

Tried before the Hon. W. W. Wilkerson. This was an action brought by John F. Glover against the Turner Coal Company, under section 3296 of the Code, to recover the statutory penalty for willfully and knowingly cutting down and destroying a large number of trees, alleged to be upon the lands of the plaintiff. As originally filed the complaint contained five counts.

Heard before-the Hon. Price Williams, Jr. On June 1st, 1876, Wm. Keyland executed and delivered to his mother, Sarah McStraffick, the following note : $1000.00. Mobile, Ala., June 1st, 1876. On demand we promise to pay to the order of Sarah McStraffick one thousand dollars. Negotiable and payable at Mobile Savings Bank. Value received. Wm. Keyland & Co.” On February 3, 1877, said Wm.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on February 10, 1892, by Josephine M. Bibb, against the Montgomery Iron Works and others ; and sought to have certain bonds of the defendant corporation held by some of the stockholders cancelled, and to have the holders of said bonds to account to the corporation for the interest received by them on said bonds. The averments of the bill are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Siiarpe . The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. (1.) The general rule of law is that, in regard to civil remedies, laws may be enacted which have a retroactive operation, but they are not to be construed to have that effect, unless it was manifestly the purpose of the legislature that they should.

Tried before the Hon. W. W. Wilkerson. This action was brought by S. D. Dantzler, administrator of W. A. McKay, deceased, against the DeBardeleben Coal & Iron Company, to recover damages for alleged negligence which caused the death of plaintiff’s intestate. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The court gave the general affirmative charge for the defendant, to the giving of which the plaintiff duly excepted. There was j udgment for the defendant.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This was an action of trespass brought by-the appellee, T. H. McRae, against W. E. Haynes, sheriff of Lowndes county, and the sureties on his official bond; and sought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful seizure of a stock of goods by the sheriff under a writ of attachment. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Hear'd before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in' this case was filed on April 11, 1891, by the appellees, John B. Reid and L. W. McCants against Elwell Eastman and Mary E. Eastman, his wife; and sought the specific performance of an alleged contract. A copy of this alleged contract was made an exhibit to the bill, and was in words and figures as follows : ‘ ‘ Birmingham, Ala., Nov. 30, 1888.

Heard before the Hon. W. W. Wilicerson. The appeal in this case is taken from the judgment of the city court dismissing an alternative writ of mandamus, issued to the appellee on a petition by appellant.

<p>Appeal from the Probate Court of Morgan.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. E. M. Russell.</p>

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by Albert Short against the North Alabama Development Company; and counted on a promissory note made by one A. Parish to the plaintiff, and assumed and agreed to be paid by the North Alabama Development Company, in part payment of the purchase money for certain land purchased from A. Parish . The only question in the case presented on this appeal, and which is decided, is sufficiently shown in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This was a statutory action of ejectment, brought by the appellants, against the appellees on April 21, 1890.

Heard before the Hon. M. T. Porter. This proceeding was commenced by a £>etibion addressed to the probate judge to set aside, annul and vacate the probate of the will of Mary A. Thompson, deceased. The petition was filed by Mattie J. Herring and others against W. A. Ricketts, administrator de bonis non, and others. All the facts that are necessary to an understanding of the decision of this court are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, J. M. Elliott, on November 21,1891, against William C. Sibley as president of the Round Mountain Coal and Iron Company, J. W. Davis, J. M. Clark and Charles H. Phinize ; and prayed to have the defendant Sibley, as president of the said corporation,enjoined from selling certain shares of stock alleged to have been owned by the complainant, and to have the other defendants removed from…

Heard before the Hon. Thos . M. Arrington . The bill in this case was filed by the appellees, Marks & Gayle, against the appellants, Kent & Barnett, on November 7, 1891; and sought to have annulled and set aside the cancellation of a certain mortgage, given by respondents to the plaintiffs, and then to have the said mortgage foreclosed. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael. This action was brought by the appellants, Prince & Blackman, to recover from S. Bissinger, the defendant, for the breach of a contract entered into by the plaintiffs and the defendant; and was commenced by attachment. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by the appellee, Thomas W. Shows, against the town of Luverne. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The cause was tried without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster,. The bill in this case was filed on May 2, 1891, by the appellant, C. E. Boss, against the New England Mortgage Security Co.; and prayed to have a threatened sale of the lands conveyed in a mortgage enjoined, and that the mortgage be declared void as violative of section 4, Article XIV of the constitution and the act approved February 28, 1887, to give force and effect to this constitutional provision.

Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael. This was an action of assumpsit, counting on the common counts, brought by the appellants, J. Simon & Son, against J. J. Johnson. The plaintiffs introduced in evidence a verified account for goods sold by them to defendant.

Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael. This was a statutory action of .ejectment, brought by Calvin Boutwell and others, against the appellants; and sought to recover certain described property. The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, the substance of which is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The court, at the request of the plaintiffs, gave the general affirmative charge in their behalf, to the giving of which the defendants duly excepted.

Tried before the Lion. B. F. Cassauy. This was an action brought by William Stedham against the Oxford Lake Line, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the defendant’s employés. The allegations Of negligence, as contained in the first count of the complaint, are as follows: “That on the said day of August, 1891, plaintiff was riding from Oxford eastward in a buggy, drawn by a mule hitched thereto, along the…

Tried before the Hon. James B. Head. This was an action brought by the appellee against the town of Avondale, to recover damages for injuries caused to property of the plaintiffs by the defendant changing the grade of one of its streets, on which the property of the plaintiffs abutted. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, there.was judgment for the plaintiffs.

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. .The bill in this case was filed by the Birmingham Brewing Company and Solomon & Levi, against a partnership under the name and style of Patrick ATiern, against Bridget O’Neil and Patrick ATiern, individually, and against J. Fox’s Sons ; and prayed to have set aside as fraudulent and void a certain conveyance of the property of said partnership, made to J. Fox’s Sons on Juné 17, 1891, in alleged payment of an alleged indebtedness .

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed by James Bottoms against James E. Dykes ; and sought to enforce a vendor's lien.

- Pleard before the Hon. William H. Tayloe. The bill in this case was filed by the children of Patrick Foley, deceased, against Ann Foley, Marx Leva and Aaron Maas, and alleged that said Ann Foley was the widow of said Patrick Foley and the administratrix of his estate ; that while acting as such administratrix, she purchased in her own name, and improved a certain lot of land in Selma, Alabama ; that in paying for said lot and improvements, she used $986 of money belonging…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. On the final submission of the cause, the chancellor decreed that D. S. Troy had no equitjr or claim to the lands involved in the suit, nor in the use and occupation or rents of any of the land ; and also decreed that D. S. Troy should pay all the costs in the suit created by the interposition of his claim, and that Walter Bros, should pay the balance of the costs of the suit.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This was a statutory action of ejectment instituted by T. D. Knight against the Alabama Midland Railway Company, on May 19,1890, and sought to recover a portion of the defendant’s right of way, which was specifically described in the complaint.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster: The bill in this case was filed on February 16, 1891, by E. R. Jordan and his wife, Mattie Jordan, against Bartow Garner and John McNair. The prayer of the bill was to have a deed made by one Mrs. Gray to the defendant Garner declared a mortgage, and have the title to the land therein -invested in the complainants.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. On the 22d February, 1890, the appellee, Charles McKenzie, filed his bill in the chancery court of Crenshaw county, against Kichard S. Hughes and others, the appellants ; and alleged therein that about eight years before the filing of the bill, he purchased from T. J. Boswell and wife the 400 acres of land described in the bill, for the agreed price of $1,000 ; that he paid $600 in cash, and agreed to pay the remaining $400 at a future…

Tried before the Hon. William E. Clarice. This was an action of assumpsit brought by N. P. Lyles against Marengo county, and counted upon the common counts. The plaintiff’s claim was based on his-alleged right to be reimbursed for money which he had paid for the hire of a boy to pump water in the jail, and to keep up the fires therein during the winter months.

Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson. These two cases involve identically the same questions, and the records are in all respects similar, and they were, therefore, submitted together. The suits were originally brought by the appellants, O. A. Stem & Co., against the appellees, and judgment was rendered for plaintiifs for a certain amount in each case. The judgment entries recited: “It being suggested that the estate of G-.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Tayloe. The bill in this case was filed by W. H. Montague against C. H. Costello, and prayed for an accounting between the partners, and a settlement of a partnership, which had formerly existed between the complainant and the respondent.

Harriet E. Jenks filed her petition, addressed to the Judges of the Supreme Court, in which she averred that J. E. Loxley & Son recovered a judgment against William Turner and others in the city court of Mobile ; that on said judgment a writ of garnishment was issued and served upon one Charles W. Stanton ; that said Stanton as garnishee answered, admitting indebtedness to the defendant, but suggested that the moneys in his hands were claimed by the petitioner ; that in a…

Heard before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants as creditors of Samuel Hyams, against the said Hyams and others; and sought to have set aside, as illegal, fraudulent and void, certain sales made by the said Hyams to other alleged creditors. The opinion renders it unnecessary to make a statement of facts. The supreme court has no jurisdiction of this cause.

Tried before the Hon. James T. Jones. This action was brought by the appellee, Elizabeth Leipf against the appellant Estra Strouse, a married woman, to recover damages for defendant’s negligently keeping a savage and ferocious dog, so that it escaped from the premises and inflicted the injuries complained of. The defendant pleaded a special plea in abatement, which is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. James B. Head. This action was brought by the appellee corporation against the appellant corporation, to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract, for the sale of a large quantity of coke. The contract, which is the basis of this suit, and which was set out in the complaint, is copied at length in the opinion; and the defenses which the defendant interposed by several different pleas are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. W.W. Wilicekson. This was an action brought by the appellee, through his next friend, against the appellant corporation ; and sought to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.

Heard before, the Hon. Jere N. Williams. The bill in this case was filed on June 11, 1892, by the appellant, James V. Ashurst, against the appellees, and prayed for the enforcement and the specific performance of a contract of purchase. The averments of the bill are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Louis Engel against D. P. West, a hotel proprietor; and sought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The injury for which the action was brought occurred on March 21, 1890 ; and the summons and complaint bear date March 16, 1891. The summons and complaint were delivered to the sheriff and executed by him on April 6, 1891.

Tried before the Pión. John P. Hubbard. This was an action brought by Allen, Bethune & Co. against J. A. McCreary, the county treasurer of Conecuh county, and the sureties on his official bond; and sought to recover damages for the breach of said bond by reason of the treasurer, McCreary, not paying, on presentation by the plaintiffs, certain bailiffs’ and jurors’ certificates, which had been regularly issued to the jurors, and bailiffs, and had been transferred to Allen,…

Tried before the Hon. Trios. M. Arrington. This was an action brought by the appellant against the appellee; and counted on a promissory note for $.300, which was made bjr the defendant to the plaintiff. On the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions, the plaintiff offered in evidence the note sued on, which showed that on May 31, 1887, the defendant promised to pay on the 1st of October, 1887, to Thos.

Tried before the EEon. John R. Tyson. This was an action brought by the appellants, Katie Creed and Mattie Flinn, against the appellee to recover $2,000, the amount claimed on a policy of insurance on a building situated near the city of Montgomery, which, was insured by the defendant against loss or injury by fire, and which was, before the bringing of said suit, entirely destroyed by fire. The defendant pleaded several pleas. By the first plea it pleaded the general issue.

Heard before the Hon. John W. Bishop. The proceedings in this case were had upon a petition for mandamus addressed to the judge of the city court of Talladega county ; and prayed that a peremptory writ of mandamus be issued to Hon. G. K. Miller, judge of probate of Talladega county, Alabama, to compel him to receive and file as an office paper, and to transmit to the Auditor of the State of Alabama, together with his certificate, that he believes the statements therein were…

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. This was an action brought by the appellees against the appellant, to recover the statutory penalty for cutting, destroying and removing certain trees, particularly described in the complaint, as provided by section 3296 of the Code of 1886. The complaint contained two counts.

Tried before the lion. Thomas M. Arrington. This is an appeal from the judgment of the city court granting a motion to set aside and vacate the judgment of said court, which was rendered against the movant at a former term. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Spkott. This was an action brought by the appellee, W. G. Cochrane, .against the appellant, J. S. Yerby, as treasurer of the county of Tuscaloosa; and sought to recover of said treasurer the amount due on certain State witnesses’ tickets that had been issued by the clerk of the county court of Tuscaloosa county. .The plaintiff based his right to recover on an act of the General Assembly, entitled An act to provide for and regulate the pay of State…

Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson. This was a statutory action of detinue brought by the appellees, Laz. Simon & Co., against the appellant; and sought to recover certain described personal property. To the complaint the defendant pleaded 1st, The general issue-; 2d, want of consideration; and 3d, that the plaintiffs had no right, title, interest or claim in the property sued for, nor any possession or right of possession thereto at the commencement of the action.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, T. W. Hannon, against W. G-. Wharton; and prayed to have the defendant perpetually enjoined from obstructing an alley-way, of which the complainant alleged in his bill he was entitled to have the free and unobstructed use.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Tayloe. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, the Torrent Fire Engine Company, Number 5, against the appellee, the city of Mobile; and sought to have the title of the complainant to a certain lot in the city of Mobile established, and the title of the city of Mobile, as it appears on the records, divested out of said city, and removed as a cloud on complainant’s title.

Tried before the Hon . H. C. Speake. The action in this case was brought by the appellee, Joe Harris, against the City Council of Sheffield, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s officers, agents or servants; and was commenced on April 14, 1890. The averments of the third count of the complaint, upon which the cause was tried, are set forth in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson. This was a statutory action of ejectment brought by the appellee, J. C. Giddens, against Josiah Morris & Co. to recover the possession of certain lands. The description of the lands sued for, as contained in the complaint, is set forth in the opinion. The title of the plaintiff to the land sued for is based on his adverse possession of the same for more than ten years.

Tried before the Hon. Ttiomas M. Arrington. This action was brought by Osborn Allen, the appellant, against the Mutual Compress Company; and counted on a contract, which had been entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant under a written contract, which, among other provisions, contained the provision which is copied in the opinion, by which the plaintiff guaranteed satisfaction to his employer .

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Colbert.</p> <p>Heard before tlie Hon. W. P. Chitwood.</p> <p>The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p> <p>cited Gay,Ilardie & fío. v. Brierfield Goal & Iron Go., 94 Ala. 303, 11 So. Rep. 353 ; Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 134.</p>

Pleard before the Hon. James W. Lapsley . The original bill in this case was filed by the Anniston Loan & Trust Company against the Southern Building & Loan Association, Isaac Linsky, and O. H. Parker, as assignee of Isaac Linsky; and sought to redeem from a mortgage which had been given by I. Linsky to the Southern Building & Loan Association.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson.</p> <p>The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p> <p>cited Young v. Poliak, 85 Ala. 439, 5 So. Rep. 279; Luke v. Calhoun County, 56 Ala. 415; Wood v. Fort, 42 Ala. 641.</p>

Heard before the Hon. W. W. Wilkerson. This was an action of trespass brought by the appellee against the appellants ; and sought to recover damages for a trespass alleged to have been committed in the bedroom of the plaintiff. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion..

■ Appeal from tlie Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tided before the Hon. John R. Tyson. This was an action on the case brought by the appellant against the appellee ; and sought to recover damages for the taking by the defendant of “three bales of cotton or its proceeds,” on which the plaintiff alleged that he had a landlord’s lien for rent.

Heard before the Hon. Jere N. Williams. The bill in this case was filed on October 25, 1893, by the appellants against the appellees. The allegations of the bill, the relief prayed for, and the grounds of demurrer are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The appeal is prosecuted by the complainants, who assign as error the decree of the chancellor sustaining the demurrers interposed. 1.

Tried before the Hon. N. I). Henson. This suit was on a note by appellants to appellees for $75.99, dated August 5, 1891, and payable 1st of October thereafter. There was no plea of the general issue ; but there were two special pleas, Nos. 1 and 2, and two others in short, viz., failure of consideration and tender; but there was no evidence introduced on the two latter. The case was Dried on the special pleas.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbabd. This was a statutory action of ejectment brought by the appellee against the appellants. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal. All the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. W. R. Houghton, Special Judge. The facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited Boykin A McRae v. Dohlonde A Co., 37 Ala. 577; Marx v. Bell, Moore A Co., 48 Ala. 497; Clark v. Jones A Bro., 87 Ala. 474, 6 So. Rep. 362. cited Marx v. Bell, Moore A Co., 48 Ala. 497; Boykin v. Dohlonde, 37 Ala. 578 ; Rhodes v. Leeds, 3 Stew. & Porter, 212 ; Clark v. Jones A Bro., 87 Ala. 474, 6 So. Rep, 362 ; Ware v. Morgan, 67 Ala. 461; 1 Amer. & Eng.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Spkott. This was an action brought by the appellant against the appellee to recover the amount due on a fire insurance policy, whereby the defendant insured the plaintiffs against all loss or damage by fire on certain cotton owned by the plaintiffs and stored in their warehouse. The complaint contained three counts, as stated in the 'opinion.

I-Ieard before the Hon Ti-xos. M. Arrington. The appellee, W. D. Andrews, as treasurer of Barbour county, filed Ms petition, addressed to the judge of the city court of Montgomery, praying for a writ of mandamus to compel the appellant, John Purifoy, as Auditor of the State of Alabama, to draw his warrant on the state treasurer, in favor of the petitioner for the sum of $2,417.29, the amount alleged to be due to the county of Barbour out of the sjirplus money alleged to be…

Heard before the Hon. Jeke N. Williams. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant in the chancery court of Montgomery county, on the, 5th day of June, 1893, against the City Council of Montgomery, to restrain the collection of taxes on real estate of the complainant by said city.

Tried before the Hon. John H. Disqhe, • This was a statutory real action in the nature of ejectment, brought by the appellant against the appellee. The title to the property involved in this suit was derived from a mortgage, which was executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, to secure a note given for money loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant payable five years after date, and also to secure the payment of the interest coupons on said debt which were payable annually.

•Tried before the lion. H. A. Sharpe. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellants against the appellee on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded the general issue, want of consideration, and failure of consideration. Upon the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions, the plaintiff introduced the note sued on, which was in words and figures as follows : $129.80. Birmingham, Ala. June 1st, 1890.

Tried before the Hon. B. F. Cassady. B. D. Ward & Co., and other creditors of the Anniston Carriage Works, on the 28th day of January, 1892, filed their bill in the city court of Anniston, seeking to have a mortgage executed by the Anniston Carriage Works to the Anniston Loan & Trust Co. declared a general assignment, for the benefit of all creditors of said Anniston Carriage Works.

Tried before the Hon. W. W. Wilkepson. This was an action brought by the appellee, S. S. Rice, against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of three cows, the property of the plaintiff.

Appeals from the Circuit Court of Colbert. Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. These two cases were statutory actions of ejectment, brought by John E. Newsom on January 9,1892, against James E. Holesapple and I. P.^G-uy and wife, respectively, for the recovery of certain lands specifically described in each of the complaints.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpaddisn. The bill in this case was filed by F. Curran & Co. against Olmstead & Scheuing and the First National Bank of Anniston ; and sought to set aside the sale of a stock of goods from Olmstead & Scheuing to the .First National Bank.

Heard before the Hon. Titos. Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant against the appellee; and prayed to be granted the privilege allowed him under the statute for redeeming property which had been sold under a mortgage.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Tayloe. The bill in this case was filed on December 29, 1886, by the appellee, W. J. Dees, against J. M. Lyon, M. J. Lyon, his sister, and Calvin Dees; and prayed for an accounting between the defendant J. M. Lyon and the complainant, and that the complainant be allowed to redeem certain lands, which were conveyed to the defendant J. M. Lyon by a mortgage, and afterwards sold under the power of sale ; and that the deed from the sheriff to J. M.…