Volume 104 — Alabama Reports

Tried before the Hon. James T. Jones. The appellants, Oliver Jackson and Hilliard Jackson, were indicted jointly with Reuben Moore for an assault with intent to murder one Sam Weil.

Tried before the Hon W. P. Chitwood. The appellant was tried and convicted .under the following indictment: “The grand jury of said county charges that before the finding of this indictment Hinton E. Carr, who was at the time the president of the Tuscumbia Banking Company, a banking firm engaged in a banking business, received from Robert T. Abernathy for deposit, three hundred and fifty-five dollars, lawful money currency of the United States of America, a more particular…

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Crenshaw.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. John E. Tyson.</p> <p>The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion .</p>

Tried before tbe Hon. J. W. Mabry. At tbe January term, 1892, of tbe city court.of Selma tbe grand jury preferred tbe following indictment: “Tbe grand jury of said county charge tbat before tbe finding of tbis indictment Lee Mack, Giller James, jolin Brown, Dow Williams and Wes Etheridge willfully set fire to or burned the gin-bouse of A. W. Coleman. ' The grand jury of said county further charge that before the finding of this indictment Lee Mack, Giller James, John Brown,…

Tried before the Hon. W. P. Chitwood. The appellant in this case, Haywood Jones, was indicted , tried and convicted for the rape of Leona Pool; and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. When the case was called for trial, the defendant moved the court to quash the venire, a list of which was served upon the defendant, and assigned several grounds for said motion.

Twd..before .the Hon. ,J. T.- Beck. * The defendant was prosecuted under ¿complaint charging him with the offense of carrying a pistol concealed about his person, and was convicted therefor.

Tried before the Hon. W. P. Chitwood. The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for embezzlement. The allegations of the three counts of the indictment are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The plea to the jurisdiction of the court, and the facts as to the demand by the defendant that the juror Neff be challenged for cause, are the same as contained in the statement of facts in the case of Oarrv. The State, ante p. 4.

Tried before the Hon. William H. Parks. The appellants, Turner Walker and Rachael Johnson, were indicted, tried and convicted of living in a state of fornication or adultery. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Leroy F. Box. The appellant in this case was indicted, tried and convicted for the burglary of a ‘ ‘warehouse or depot building of the Birmingham & Atlantic Railroad Company, in which building goods, merchandise or things of value were kept,” &c. The testimony introduced on the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions, tended to show that the defendant was guilty as charged.

Tried before the Hon. Samuel E. Greene. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in. the opinion. The bill of lading vested legal title in Lewis Lippman, his father, and gave him control of the property. — L. & N. R. R. Go. v. Fulgham, 91 Ala. 557; Pemberton v. N. Y. Gen. R. R. Co. , 104 Mass. 144.

Tried before the Hon. W. C. Christian. The indictment under which the appellant in this case was tried and convicted charged that “Wiley Hill did unlawfully, maliciously, or negligently throw down a fence, the property of Lige Monroe alias Elijah Monroe, and did fail to immediately rebuild or replace the same.” The testimony on the part of the State tended to show that the prosecutor, Lige Monroe, had leased the premises from one Mrs. Poelnitz, and that, during said…

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. The appellant in this case was tried and convicted tinder the following indictment: “The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment that Wallace Bradford, against the ordér of nature, attempted to carnally know a certain beast, to-wit, a cow, against the peace and dignity of the State of - Alabama.” The second count of the indictment is the same, except the beast referred to therein is a heifer.

Tried before the Hon. O. J. Semmes. The appellant was indicted jointly with his wife, Julia Martin, for the larceny of $G00, and for receiving $600, knowing it was stolen, and not having the intent to restore it to the owner. On the trial of the defendants jointly, the said Julia Martin was convicted of the larceny, and the appellant in this case was convicted of receiving the money, knowing it to be stolen.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted under the following indictment: “The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of.this indictment, that Seaborn Bell practiced medicine in Dale county, Alabama, without having first obtained a certificate of qualification from one of the authorized boards of medical examiners of the State of Alabama, against the peace •and dignity of the State of Alabama.” This…

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. The appellant in this case, Adolphus E. Anderson, was indicted, tried and convicted for the seduction of Izora Compton ; and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years. The evidence for the State tended to show that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment; while the defendant attempted to show that the said Izora Compton was unchaste.

The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The decree in this case, having ascertained the right of the complainant to dower, is final, notwithstanding the necessity for a reference to- the register. — Cochran v. Miller, 74 Ala. 61.

The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. Imprisonment, though .legal in its inception, may become by subsequent omissions, acts and events illegal and unlawful. — Code of 1886, § 4785 ; Kirby v. State, 62 Ala. 57 ; Exparte Rand, '99 Ala. 302 ; Ex parte Crews, 78 Ala. .457 [TEx parte King, 82 Ala. 59. 2.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. Walter A. Skelton was arrested upon complaint and warrant charging him with the murder of R. C. Ross.

Tried before the Hon. Ti-ios. M. Arrington. This action was brought by the appellees, James H. Hardaway and George W. Covington, against the Montgomery Furniture Company, a partnership composed of George Hollander and Ed. Hollander; and was commenced on January 28, 1893.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on March 20,1890, by the appellees, the children and heirs-at-law of M. J. Alexander, deceased, to enforce a vendor’s lien on certain lands, which were sold by the complainants’ intestate to Thomas Holcomb. After the purchase of said lands by said Thomas Holcomb, he continued in possession thereof up to the time of his death, which occurred in January, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas M. Arrington. The bill in this case was filled by the appellees, Janney & Cheney, as trustee of the estate of Moses Brothers, to compel the determination of the appellant’s claim to certain real estate, and to quiet the title of the same, as provided by an act of the legislature approved December 10, 1892. (Acts 1892-93, p. 42).

Tried before the Hon. W. H. Simpson. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee, T. C.Ryan, against the appellant, counting on the common counts, and was commenced on April 29, 1891.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on January 10,1894, by the appellee, Jane P. Crook, against the appellant, George W. Bowling ; and prayed for an injunction against the defendant, restraining him from trespassing upon the lands of the complainant, and also for the cancellation, as a cloud upon her title, of the lease made by her husband to the defendant.

Heard before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. The bill in this case was filed on April 19, 1889, by the appellees as contract creditors orV. L. Thompson, for the purpose of having; set aside, and declared as fraudulent and void, a bill of sale executed by said Y. L. Thompson to C. A. Thompson, his mother, on January 3, 1889. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. Wilson Bros. & Co., at the spring term- of the circuit court of Frankliu county, 1887, recovered a judgment against It. C. Hughes, for the 'sum of $190.84, besides costs. On this judgment, an execution issued on the 10th day of October, 1891, and, coming to the hands of the sheriff, was levied on certain personal property, the subject of this claim suit. On the 29th of February/ 1892, W. it.

Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson. The appellants, Cunningham & Sons, brought an action of assumpsit against the appellees, Baker, Peterson & Co. This suit was inststuted by suing out a writ of attachment against defandants, which was executed by the service of a sheriff’s garnishment upon A. Gerald, the chief of police of the .city of Montgomery, who had previously arrested the defendants, Frank Baker and James Peterson, who had been engaged in business in the city of New…

Appeals from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson.

Tried, before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael... .This action was'brought.bythe appellee, Julia' Catch - ings, '. against the appellant, the .Syndicate.'Insurance Company, of Minneapolis, Minnósota, and counted .upon a policy of fire insurance, which had been issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. This was a statutory action of ejectment, brought by the appellees against the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company and Tennessee & Coosa Railroad Company, to recover a certain described tract of land, and was commenced on February 10, 1892.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Tayloe. The bill in this case was filed on September 9, 1893, by the appellee, Thomas Anderson, against the appellant, Mary J. McClarin and sought to have a certain conveyance of land executed by Robert McClarin and Mary J. McClarin to James Robertson, and a deed conveying the same lands from James Robertson and wife to Mary J. McClarin, set aside and annulled as fraudulent, and the property conveyed therein sold for the payment of a judgment…

Appeals from the Chancery Court of Montgomery. Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. This was an action brought on July 11, 1892, by the appellant, Samuel H. Glover, against the appellees, as administrators of the estate of William Moore, deceased, and counted upon a note, alleged to have been executed by the said Moore to the plaintiff. Issue was joined upon the sworn plea of non est factum.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, the Highland Avenue & Belt Railroad Company, against the appellant, the South & North Alabama Railroad Company, to compel the specific performance of an alleged covenant in a deed from the Elyton Land Company to the defendant, in which the defendant agreed to allow any other railroad company running into the city of Birmingham to construct its road upon the right-of-way granted to the…

Tried before the Hon. N. D. Denson. The appellant sued out an attachment and caused it to be levied on a stock of goods as the property of defendants in attachment, Payne Bros. William Gray interposed a claim to them under the statute, and the trial below was between the plaintiff in attachment and the claimant, on issue joined on the allegation of the plaintiff, that the goods levied on were the property, of the defendants in attachment.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This was an action.brought by the appellant, as the administratrix of the estate of A. W. Johnson, deceased, against the Louisville & , Nashville Railroad Company and the South & North Alabama Railroad Company; and sought to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of the plaintiff’s intestate.

Tried before the Hon, John B. Tally. This was a statutory action of detinue, brought by the appellants, Foster & Rudder, against the appellee, E. M. Smith, to recover the possession of some mules, which had been conveyed by a mortgage, executed by the defendant Smith to one Tally, and by said Tally transferred to the plaintiffs. The facts of the case and the contention of the respective parties to the litigation are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Circuit Court of Cleburne. Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. The plaintiff, Paul Jones, on the 10th day of July, 1889, sued out an attachment in the circuit court of Cleburne county, against Wiley & Green, living in Atlanta, Ga., which was, on the same day, executed by levying on three barrels of whiskey, and, also, by summoning R. P. Evitt as garnishee and debtor of said Wiley & Green.

Tried before the Hon. B. F. Cassady. The appellant was arrested and tried before the recorder of the city of Anniston, for the violation of an ordinance of the city. On his appeal to the city coui’t of Anniston, there was a complaint filed in behalf of the mayor and city council of Anniston, claiming of the defendant a penalty for the violation of an ordinance passed by the mayor ail'd'city council'of..

<p> Bill in 'Equity to have Partnership Assets subjected to Payment of Judgment Creditors. </p> <p>1. Equity jurisdiction; existence of adequate remedy at law must be ■pleaded, and not presented by demurrer.- — -The fact that complainant in a bill in equity has an adequate remedy at law is defensive in its nature, and need not be negatived in the bill; and where a bill does not show affirmatively that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law, the existence of such remedy must be set up by answer or plea, since the question can not be raised by demurrer.</p> <p>2. Same; the existence of a legal cause of action against a third party no defense. — Where a bill in equity is filed against one man on equitable grounds, the fact that the complainant has a remedy on the same cause of action against another man in acourt of law, constitutes no defense for the defendant in the chancery suit, and presents no bar to the maintenance of the bill.</p> <p>3. Partnership; liability of partnership assets for devastavit committed by partners as administrators. — Where persons who are partners in business, and are also administrators of a decedent’s estate, and as such administrators they convert the funds of the estate to the use of their partnership business, and the heirs and distributees of such estate recover judgment against them jointly as such administrators for said devastavit, on the subsequent insolvency of the partnership the heirs and distributees are entitled to share in its assets as judgment creditors of the partnership; and they can maintain a bill in equity to compel the assignee in a deed of assignment, executed by said partners for the benefit of the j>artnership creditors, to recognize and protect them as judgment creditors.</p>

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This was an action brought by the appellee, F. M. Ryan, against the American Oak Extract Company, to recover an amount, alleged to be due the plaintiff for 50 cords of wood, under a contract, alleged to have been made with the defendant. There were four counts in the complaint. The first is on an account, alleged to be due on the 1st day of October, 1891.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The facts of the case are sufficiently staled in the opinion. There were cross appeals in this case. The Bridgeport Electric & Ice Company and the Bridgeport Land and Improvement Company, each, appealed from the order of the chancellor granting the prayer of the petitioner, Meader; and each assign the granting of this order as error. 1. The order appealed from in this caséis a final decree, which will support an appeal.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs . The present bill was filed on December 4, 1891, by the appellant, Wiley B. Hester, against the appellee, John F. Hunnicutt, for the purpose of eniorcing a vendor’s lien on a certain tract of land described in the bill, which, as was alleged in the bill, he had sold to the defendant on February 21, 1890.

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. The Mayor and City Council of Anniston, under authority of its charter, passed an ordinance on December 22-, 1893, to license, tax and regulate all kinds of business carried on in the city of Anniston. By this ordinance a license tax of $100 per annum was levied on express companies, doing business in said city of Anniston, and engaged in carrying freight to and from the city to other parts of the State of Alabama.

Heard before the Hon. W. P. Chitwood. The present appeal is taken from a decree appointing a receiver of the property of the Bank of Florence, under a bill filed by the appellee, the United States Savings & Loan Co. In addition to the allegations of the bill, which are stated in the opinion, and upon which are predicated the right to have the receiver appointed, the bill also averred that the officers of the bank had, wrongfully and without authority of its stockholders,…

Heard before the Hon. William B. Bridges. The appellant, Mattie G. Matthews, as guardian of her two minor children, by appointment of the court of probate of Jackson county, which was the county of the residence of the said wards, filed her petition in the probate court of Jackson county, praying for the sale of the lands of her wards, which were situated in Calhoun county, for their maintenance and education.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy E. Box. This was a statutory action of ejectment, brought by the appellants against the appellees, to recover certain lands specifically described in the complaint, and was commenced on December 21, 1892.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, Joseph B. Smith, against the appellee, The Birmingham Water Works Company. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The chancellor by his decree did not dismiss the bill for the want of equity, but dissolved the injunction.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Tayloe. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants, Sylvester Festorazzi and Amabile Muscat, as executors of the estate of Joseph Peter, deceased, and prayed to have the will of their testator construed, and to be directed as to how to distribute the estate. The children of Joseph Peter and the Roman Catholic Cathedral and the St. Joseph’s Catholic Church of Mobile were made parties defendant.

Tried before the Hon. W. H. Taylob. The bill in this case was filed on May 16, 1893, by Thomas A. Yeend, as administrator of the estate of George Brown, deceased, against Dorval W. Weeks, Rosalie Weeks, Felix Andry and Joseph D. Weeks; and sought to have set aside as voluntary and fraudulent certain conveyances executed by the said D. W. Weeks to each of the other respondents ; and also a contribution from said D. W. Weeks of his share of the amount paid by the complainant’s…

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. The appellee, Charles S. Beaumont, on January 10, 1889, brought the present action of ejectment against the appellant, William Gist, for the recovery of a certain lot in the city of Tuscumbia. The plaintiff’s claim was founded upon a deed, which was executed by the mayor of the city of Tuscumbia to him as the purchaser of said lot at a sale for taxes thereon due to said city of Tuscumbia. This deed was executed on January. 4, 1882.

Heard before the Hon. Jere N. Williams. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants, as creditors of Perry Moone and others, and sought to have set aside as fraudulent certain conveyances, executed by the said Perry Moone. All the facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The respondents demurred to the bill, among others, upon the following grounds : “4th.

Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed by Ryland Randolph, Jr., by his next friend, against the East Birmingham Land Company, Ryland Randoph, Sr., James E. Webb, H. C. Tompkins and D. H. Sumner, and alleges that Ryland Randolph, Sr., the father of complainant, . desiring to donate to his son the lands in question, purchased them from one Briggs, who was then the owner, for the use and benefit of the complainant; and on the 6th day of March, 1874, said Briggs, at the…

Tried before the Hon. William L. Stephens. This action was instituted on August 6, 1892, by the appellee corporation, the Excelsior Stove Pattern Company, against the appellants, B. J. and E. H. Lowman, doing business under the firm name of Lowman Brothers ; and sought to recover an amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff for certain stove patterns, which had been sold by it to the defendants.

Heard before the Hon. Jere N. Williams. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants, as creditors of D. D. Strickland, against the appellees. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The decree of the court below is contrary to the established principles of law, and is erroneous. — Moritz & Weil v. Miller, 87 Ala. 331; Thompson v. Tower Manfg. Go., 87 Ala. 733; Dollins & Go. v. Lindsey & Go., 89 Ala. 217; Word v. Word, 90 Ala. 81. 2.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. In a suit in the circuit court of Marshall county by A. J. McDonald, as administrator of the estate of W. T. Beard, deceased, against Thomas A. Cox, there was a judgment in favor of the defendant, upon which execution was issued for the costs of said suit.

• ■ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall. Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. The appellants brought the present action againt W. A. Elrod and M. G. Wells, sheriff, and the sureties on his official bond, for the recovery of damages for the wrongful taking of certain personal property, alleged to be the property of the plaintiffs. The suit was instituted on February 7, 1890.

<p>Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington.</p> <p>The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p> <p>cited Vandegrift v. Abbott, 75 Ala. 487; Couch v. Woodruff, 63 Ala. 473; Taylor v. Strickland, 37 Ala. 642; Wood v. Coman, 56 Ala. 283 ; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Meyer, 78 Ala. 597 ; Cowan v. Sapp, 74 Ala. 44; Porter on Bills of Lading, §§ 65, 66 etseq., 173, 382-3-4; IBrick. Dig., 865, §§ 866-867.</p> <p>cited Hutchinson on Carriers, § 84a, and authorities there cited.</p>

Tried before the Hon. James J. Banks. This suit was brought on October 9, 1892, by the appellant, James R. Collins, against the appellee, the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, as a common carrier and a warehouseman, to recover damages for the failure to deliver to the plaintiff a certain lot The 1,2, 3 and 5 counts of the complaint sought a recovery of the defendant as a common carrrier; and the remaining counts, the 4th and 6th, undertook to hold the defendant…

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. . The appellees, Handley, Reeves & Co., brought the present suit against the appellants, S. Bain and others, on March 4,1892. The complaint counted upon a promissary note made by the defendants. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before tbe Hon. James J. Banks. This was a garnishment proceeding instituted by the appellant, the Bradley Fertilizer Company, suing out a writ of garnishment upon a judgment recovered by it against John E. Cooke, which writ of garnishment was served upon the appellees, J. Pollock & Co. It was admitted that the firm of Cooke, Phillips & Walker, of which the defendant, John E. Cooke, the judgment debtor of the appellant, was a member, was indebted to J. Pollock & Co.,…

Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson. A. B. Windham, the appellee, brought the present action against H. T. Wimberly and W. J. Nicholson, on February 12,1890. The complaint counted upon a promissory note made by the defendants to Geo. W. Scott & Co., which said note had been duly transferred and assigned to the plaintiff.

Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson. This was a statutory action of detinue, brought by the appellee, H. H. Howard, against the appellants, Osborn Barnhill, E. Barnhill and Owen Barnhill, for the recovery of two yoke of oxen; and was originally commenced before a justice of the peace.

Tried before the Hon. N. D. Denson. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. M. Y. Hayes, as an individual, made no 'claim, to any of the property in question in this case; and he can not now assign errors in this court, or complain of the rulings of the trial court. This is against the rulings of the supreme court. — Lehman v. Warner, 53 Ala. 544; Treadway v. Treadway, 56 Ala. 390; Poliak v. Graves, 72 Ala. 347; Jackson v. Ba,in, 74 Ala. 328 ; 3 Brick.

ólair. Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. This was an action on the case, brought by the appellees against the appellant, to recover damages,- alleged to have been done by the defendant to the reversionary interest of the plaintiffs in certain lands described in the complaint, by cutting and carrying away and converting to his own use valuable timbers therefrom. The suit, as originally brought, was in the name of the twelve heirs-at-law of James Rowland, deceased.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. This was an action brought by the appellee, Cam Anderson, against the appellant, R. E. Anderson, for the unlawful detainer of a lot in the city of Fort Payne. The plaintiff claimed title to the premises involved in this suit under a deed executed to him by the sheriff. This property was sold by the sheriff under an execution issued against the defendant, R. E. Anderson, and at said salé the plaintiff became the purchaser.

Tried before the Hon. W. P. Chitwood. This suit was instituted by Frank M. Ricketts, the., appellee, on April 18,1893, against Sarah A. Lawton and B. A. Lawton, the appellants ; and sought to recover the sum of one thousand dollars, and the interest due on a promissory note, which was alleged to have been executed by the defendants to the plaintiff on October 1, 1891, and payable with interest one year after date. The defendants pleaded the following pleas : “1.

Tried before the Hon. N. D. Denson. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The last four sections in the act involved in this suit are unconstitutional ; and all the various sections of the said act being so mutually connected with and dependent on each other, as that the provisions of the act itself can not be carried into effect without the four last sections, which are unconstitutional, the act itself is void. — Cooley’s Const.

Tried before the Hon. H. C: Speaks. This was a statutory action of ejectment, brought by the appellant, M. D. L. Parks, against the appellee, W. B. Barnett, on January 16, 1893 ; and sought to recover-the possession of a certain lot described in the complaint, situated in the city of Huntsville. On motion, Belle D. Coltart was made a party and allowed to defend the suit, as landlord of said Barnett. She pleaded the general issue, and the statute of limitations of ten years.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by the appellees, Smith, Grainger & Cantrell, suing as partners, against the appellants, Penn & Co., to recover damages for the breach by the defendants of a contract for the purchase by them from the plaintiffs of a quantity of flour, at specified prices.

Tried before the Hon. James T. Jones. This action was brought by the appellee, Margaret Master, against the appellant, Annie Brown, on November 28, 1891; and sought to recover damages arising from the levy of an attachment upon a stock of goods owned by the plaintiff. The complaint contained two counts, the substance of each of which is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadben. The bill in this case was filed on December 4,1893, by. the appellant, the Magnetic Ore Company, against the appellee corporation, the Marbury Lumber Company. The title of the complainant to the property involved in the suit is stated in the opinion. The. title of the respondent is rest¿d upon a deed from the Louisville & Nashville Bailroad Company, executed on July 29, 1891, to certain parties through whom the respondéñt claims.

Tried before the Hon. W. P. Chitwood. This was an action brought by the appellee, James H. Field, on March 24, 1891, against the appellant, The Florence Cotton & Iron Company, a corporation organized… Held: October 24th, 1889, on condition that Messrs.

Tried before the Hon. James R. Dowdell. This was a Statutory claim suit instituted by the appellees, Smith Brothers, interposing a claim to certain property, which had been levied upon under an attachment sued out by Goetter, Weil & Co. against Gosden & Co. Upon the trial of the issue, as shown by the bill of exceptions, the plaintiffs proved that the indebtedness of Gosden & Co. to them fell due in the month of November, 1890 ; that a part of this indebtedness was…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. On November 22,1889, George M. Reese died intestate, being in possession of and owner of certain real estate. The said George.M. Reese died without leaving wife or issue, and left surviving him brothers and sisters. On January 7, 1890, Mrs. Georgia McCurdy, a sister of said George M. Reese, was appointed the administratrix of his estate, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of said administration.

Tried before the Hon. James J.' Banks. The present suit was brought by the appellant against the appellees, to recover the p^ricg-of certain articles of stationery, which were alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendants under a written contract which was contained in a proposition to furnish stationery at certain prices, and which was accepted by the defendants.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by the appellee, John T. Banks, as the administrator of the estate of W. A. Thomas, deceased, against the appellant, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, to recover damages for the killing of the plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. .

Tried before the Hon. John H. Disque. On March 14, 1894, Thos. L. Johnson recovered a judgment in.the justice of the peace court against L. W. M. Dismukes for the sum of $43.64, and costs of suit.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Tayloe. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant against the appellee on January 3, 1891, and prayed to have a certain conveyance, executed by one George F. Werborn to his brother, Charles Werborn, set aside and annulled as fraudulent against the grantor’s existing creditors, and to have a receiver appointed to take charge of the property conveyed in said deed.

Heard before the Hon. W. H. Tayloe. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. There was no dedication of the land involved. in this controversy.

Tried before the Hon. James J. Banks. This action was commenced on the 6th day of May, 1889, by the appellant, Thomas T. Taylor, against the defendant Joseph S. Smith, as sheriff of Jefferson county, and the sureties on his official bond, to recover damages for the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff on a warrant, issued by a justice of the peace, charging plaintiff with a misdemeanor, for unlawfully and wantonly injuring and disfiguring an animal.

Tried before the Hon. James T. Jones. This was a summary proceeding under section 3151 of the Code, by one alleged co-surety against another, whereby the plaintiff, who is appellee here, sought, on a motion made for the purpose, a summary judgment against the defendant, D. W. Weeks, upon the ground that plaintiff's intestate and defendant were co-sureties on the administration bond of one Hall, who had been appointed administrator of the estate of one Dowty, deceased, and…

Tried before the Hon. James T. Jones. On November 25,1890, Charles Torrey, as executor of John Bowen, deceased, brought a statutory action .of ejectment in the Baldwin county circuit court against James A. Bishop and Elisha Forbes, to recover the possession of certain specifically described lands.

Tried before the Hon. James T. Jones. The facts of this case are identical with the case of Torrey v. Bishop, supra, ante, p. 548, with one exception. After the death of the defendant Forbes, the cause was revived against H. W. Slaughter, as the administrator of the estate of E. Forbes, deceased, and the heirs of the deceased. The only difference between the facts of this case and the facts of the case of T'orreyv.

Heard before the Hon'. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed in the chancery court of Lee county, on February 16, 1892, by the appellees, S. T. Nelms, Mrs. Mollie F. Miller, whose maiden name was Mollie F. Nelms, and Maggie V. Adair, nee Maggie Y. Nelms, against the appellants, W. H. Kimbrough, Samuel Marshal and Mrs. Fletcher Marshal, the first two being the executors of S. H. Pitts, who died in the month of May, 1891, and the said Kimbrough and Mrs. Marshal…

Tried before tbe Hon. John Moore. This was a statutory claim suit, instituted by the appellant, Charles L. Rodenberg, interposing a claim, to certain goods, which had been levied upon as the property of F. S. & H. Rosenberg, under an attachment issued at the instance of H. B. Claflin Co., in a suit in which H. B. Claflin Co. was plaintiff, and F. S. & H. Rosenberg were defendants.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Si-iarpe. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. A garnishment suit is, in effect an independent suit, and is subject to the same rulings as to services of process; continuances, &c., as any other suit. — Harris v. Miller, 71 Ala. 26.

Tried before the Hon. John H. Disque. This was a common law action of ejectment, brought by the appellant against the appellees. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The cause was tried without the intervention of a jury. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for a part of the land sued for, and judgment was rendered for the defendant for the remainder of the land.

Heard before the Hon. Jere N. Williams. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants in the chancery court of Montgomery county on March 17, 1894, against the Alabama Terminal & Improvement Company and others; and sought to subject .certain subscriptions made by the defendants to the capital stock of the Alabama Terminal & Improvement Company, to the payment of a judgment in favor of the complainants, on which judgment execution had been duly issued and returned by the…

Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson. This was an action brought by the appellants, Winter & Loeb, a partnership doing business in the city of Montgomery, against James A. Pool; and counted upon a promissory note executed by the defendant, and which had been purchased by the plaintiffs. The defendant filed a special plea of non est, factum, which was properly sworn to.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on June 21, 1890, by the appellee against the appellants. In addition to the facts stated in the opinion, the following facts were disclosed : On the 29th day of April, 1889, T. J. Ross executed t o the Florence Mutual Building, Loan & Savings Association a mortgage on a certain lot in the town of Florence, Alabama, to secure a loan made to him by said association of nine hundred dollars.

Appeal'from the Chancery Court of Geneva. Heard before the Hon. Jere N. Williams. The original bill in this case was filed by the appellee, Joseph E. Hinson, against M. E. Milligan andB. F. Pate, as sheriff of Geneva county, on September 8, 1894; and prayed for the cancellation of a deed, executed by the defendant B. F. Pate, as sheriff to M. E. Milligan, who purchased at an execution sale, and that the execution of a writ of possession be enjoined, and for general relief.

Tried before the Hon. James J. Banks. This action was brought by the appellant against the appellees, and as originally filed the complaint contained three counts. The complaint was subsequently amended by adding two additional counts.

.Tried before the Hon. James J. Banks. This was an action on the case brought by Albert Mayer, by his next friend, against the Thompson-Hutchison Building Company, T. C. Thompson, W.H. Thompson, J. Harry Hutchison and Henry Hutchison, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted by reason of the negligence of the defendants. The complaint contained two counts, the allegations of each of which are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

ApPBAb from the Circuit Court of Jefferson. Tried before the Hon, Jambs J. Banks. This was a statutory action'in the nature of ejectment for the recovery of land, instituted by James M. Norment and others against the Eureka Company and others. The cause was tried in the court below by and before the presiding judge, without a jury, on the pleas of not guilty and the statute of limitation of ten years, and resulted in a j udgment for the plaintiffs.

Tried before the Hon. James J. Banks. The proceedings in this case were had upon the contest of the answer by the Birmingham National Bank as garnishee in a suit by the appellee, S. O. Mayer, against one J. Galatoire.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on March 9, 1892, by James L. Pike and others, children of Reuben A. Pike, deceased, against Joseph C. Pike, and prayed the cancellation of a deed to certain lands, executed on December 17, 1879, by Reuben A. Pike to Joseph C. Pike, oa the ground that the grantor in said deed was, at the time of the execution thereof, insane, and on the further ground of pndue influence, and the want of consideration for…

Tried before the Hon. N. D. Denson. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. The contract of sale involved in this case was not completed until the fertilizer was delivered to Brown & Co. at Kellyton, Alabama, and all freight charges paid thereon. — Pilgreen v. State, 71 Ala. 368 ; 21 Amer. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 528, 530 ; Devine v. Edwards, 101 Ill. 138; Userry v. Nichols Manfg. Co., 11 N. Y. 2.

Tried before the Hon. James J. Banks. This was an action brought by the appellant, by his next friend, against the appellee, to recover damages for personal injuries, alléged to have been inflicted by the negligence of the defendant. As originally filed the complaint contained two counts. After the remandment of the cause on the former appeal,' the complaint was amended by adding three additional counts.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was brought on April 9, Í892, by the appellees, J. C. Bush & Co., against the appellant, Guy Foster, and counted on a promissory note from the defendant to the plaintiffs, executed on June 27, 1891, and payable December 1, 1891. The defendants pleaded the general issue, want of consideration, failure of consideration, payment, usury and set-off.

Tried before the Hon. James J. Banks. This was an action in trover brought by L. Strauss & Sons against Mrs. Fannie Schwab and Leo Schwab, her husband, for goods aggregating in value $319.39. The case was tried by the judge without a jury, according to the statute in such cases made and provided.