Volume 12 — Tennessee Reports

This cause came up on appeal from the circuit court of M’Nairy county. The record shows that the plaintiff in error, who was the plaintiff below, declared in assumpsit against the defendant, alleging in his declaration that the defendant, Rankin, in consideration that he, the plaintiff, would sell to Mm the right of possession and good will, .. .

This case came up from the circuit court of Henderson county, on appeal in the nature of a writ of error.

This is an appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of Carroll county. The defendant in error sued in ejectment for 1000 acres of land in Carroll county, described by metes and bounds in the declaration. The plaintiff in error claimed title to the lands, and had himself made defendant under the common rule, put himself on his title, and pleaded not guilty. Upon a trial before the mry m the court below, the following ..

This cause came up to this court on appeal in the nature of a writ of error, from the decision of the Circuit Court of Madison County.

This cause came up on appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the Circuit Court of Henry County.

This was an appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of Weakley county. The record shows that the plaintiff below, Israel Harmon, had a warrant issued returnable before a justice of the peace, against John H. Moon and L. G. Cassleman; that the warrant was executed on Moon alone, and returned before the justice, when a judgment was rendered against Moon, without any other steps being taken against Cassleman.

This was an appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of Carroll county. An action of trover was brought by Gwin against the defendants, for the conversion of a negro man named Jim, to which the de-defendants pleaded not guilty, and issue was taken thereon by the plaintiff', and the cause transferred from the county court of Carroll county by consent of parties and the leave of the court, to the circuit court for said tt i . , 7 . , , c • county.

This was a writ of error prosecuted from the Circuit Court of Fayette County. The plaintiff below brought his action of debt on the following note: “On or before the first day of January, 1831, I promise to pay C. E. M’Ewen, agent for the executors of Joseph Branch, dec. four hundred and ninety dollars, with one year’s interest; value received. Witness my hand and seal, this 15th May, 1828. THOS.

This was an appeal in the'nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of Hardeman county. This suit was brought by Lane, defendant in error, against Polk, plaintiff in error, under the act of Assembly of 1807, ch. 2, for a trespass committed by the horses and mules of the former, upon the cleared and cultivated ground of the latter.

This was añ appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of Carroll county.

Tills was an appeal in the nature of a writ of error, from the circuit court of Hardeman county.

This was an action of trespass on the case, brought by Johnson, the plaintiff in error, in the circuit court of Hardeman county, against the defendant, Friar, as a common carrier.

At the January term 1833, of the circuit court for Madison county, David Shropshire, the jailer, presented his account for boarding Thomas and William Griggs, in the jail of said county, from the 26th of December, 1831, until the 27th day of January, 1832, being 32 days, at 37 1-2 cents per day, making $24, and for two turnkeys at 50 cents each, making one dollar’; m all $25.

The original bill in this cause was filed by Henry Small, administrator'of John Pearsall, deceased, against Thomas H. Wright, the appellant, in the circuit court of Tip-ton county, and alleges, that John Pearsall, in his life time, about the year 1821 or 1822, then a citizen of the State of North Carolina, purchased of the State Bank of North Carolina, at Newbern, a tract of land in said State; that he executed his notes for the purchase money, with said Thomas H. Wright,…

This was an appeal from the decree of the chancery court of Paris, entered by consent of the parties pro forma, dismissing the complainant’s bill; the agreed decree is set forth in the opinion of the court, and renders it unnecessary to re-state it.

On the 19th day of July, 1828, James Read, the complainant in the court below, and appellee in this court, filed his bill in the court of chancery at Jackson, against the heirs of John Long, sen. deceased.

The bill in this case was filed in the circuit court of Carroll county. The subject matter of the bill is unnecessary to be set forth, as the argument at the bar, and the decision of the court were based upon the correctness of the decision of the circuit court in dismissing the bill. The bill alleged that the defendants resided in Maury county. Subpcenas were issued to that county, and were there executed upon the defendants.

This was an appeal from the decree of the court of chancery, sitting at Jackson, dismissing the bill.

The bill in this case was filed on the 10th day of June, 1829, and charges, that the State of North Carolina granted to Martin Armstrong, on the 14th day of December, 1793, by grant number 384, five thousand acres of land; that complainant purchased the land of said Armstrong on the 19th April, 1794, for which a deed of conveyance is exhibited; that on the compromise between the States of Kentucky and Tennessee as to the north boundary line of the State of Tennessee, it was…

The record shows that the complainant Shenault, filed the bill in this case in the circuit court of Fayette county, on the 30th day of August, 1830. .The bill alleges, that Walter Shenault, on the 26th day of December, 1828, purchased of Samuel Spears and-- White, (two of the defendants below) two negro girls, one named Jemima, about fifteen years of age, the other named Lucy, about twelve years of age, for which two negro girls he paid six hundred dollars; two hundred…

The bill in this case was filed in the chancery court at Bolivar, and alleges that Murry, on the 6th day of January, 1825, leased and rented to Elisha and Thomas Boyts, the improvements made upon the north west side of a tract of 640 acres of land lying in the 10th district, 2 section of the first range, belonging to complainant, for a corn rent, upon which the defendant Murry re- • ii . ii m . _.. i , ceivea the rent m corn worth about §125; that the contract was for the…

This bill was filed in the circuit court of Weakley county, and charges, that the defendants, St. John and Wilson, were partners in trade under the firm and style of Wilson and St. John; that some time in the year 1820, the complainant became the security of Abel Pur-sel, for about the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars; that suit was brought and judgment recovered against complainant and Pursel, for the said sum of $150; that the money was collected of the complainant;…

This is an appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of Hardeman county, upon an indictment for'receiving stolen goods.

This was an appeal from the chancery court at Paris. The complainant alleges that Smith and Locke, two of the defendants, recovered a judgment against Francis M’Connell, in the circuit court of Jackson county, for about $2400; that the same was placed in the hands of defendant Holland, sheriff of Henry county, who levied it upon three negroes, the property of Francis M’Connell; that M’Connell empowered John L. M’Connell to execute a delivery bond for these three negroes;…

. This is an appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of the county of Gibson, upon an indictment for stabbing.

<p>The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the court, which renders it unnecessary to relate them.</p>

<p>It is not necessary to prove by the person whose property is charged to have been stolen, that the property stolen belonged to him; the testimony of other persons who knew the fact, is sufficient.</p> <p>Where the panne] of jurors furnished by the county court, and out of which a grand jury was selected, did not contain the number required by law, it was held that this was not sufficient to arrest the judgment.</p>

The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court, and it is not necessary to repeat them. 1. That the evidence in the cause, showed that the mare when stolen, (if stolen at all,) was out of her usual range, and was lost to the owner. If such were the fact, no larceny could be committed in taking her, as there must be a trespass in the original taking, to constitute a larceny. 1 Haywood’s Rep.in note: 2 Tenn.

Motion on a prison bounds bond, against Sumner as principal and Foster as security. The debt, interest and costs when the bond was taken, amounted to $77 81, the penalty of the bond is $159 54.

<p>When two parties to a suit apply for a supersedeas, which is granted, the writ of error issues in the name of all the parties to the suit, unless there is a summons and severance.</p> <p>The judgment must conform to the verdict, or it is error.</p> <p>When the jury find that there is a balance of debt, but do not state the balance, and find damages for the detention of the balance, a trial de novo will be ordered.</p> <p>Rivers, for plaintiff in error.</p> <p>Bramlitt, for defendant,</p>

<p>When a capias ad satisfaciendum issues, and the defendant discharges himself by taking the insolvent debtor’s oath, the costs cannot be taxed against the plaintiff in such capias ad satisfaciendum; they must be taxed with other costs in the cause.</p>

This was a motion made against Porter, as sheriff of Giles county, for not returning an execution placed in his hands for collection, by the defendants in error. The proceedings against him in the circuit court of Giles county were as follows: “Ezra Webb & Co. vs. Thos.

<p>Where the plaintiff in an attachment stated that the defendant “has removed himself so that the ordinary process of the law cannot be served upon him,” hold, that this was not sufficient cause to issue the attachment.</p> <p>An attachment must issue under the seal of the justice granting it, otherwise it is void; and the court to which it is returned has no jurisdiction of the cause.</p>

<p>Where the charter of a corporation authorizes it to pass laws to prevent and remove nuisances, held, that a law prohibiting the showing or exhibiting stud horses in the town, is within the power.</p> <p>Showing or exhibiting stud ho.rses in a town is a nuisance.</p>

<p>A deed void for fraud against existing creditors, is also void as to subsequent creditors.</p> <p>Possession of goods after an absolute sale is prima facie evidence of fraud.</p> <p>When a deed is void in part for fraud, it is void in toto.</p>

<p>When a party is permitted to amend his pleadings after a verdict, a trial de novo mast he allowed.</p> <p>The declarations and statements of a deceased individual that he was agent, are not admissible testimony to prove the agency. There must be other proof showing the fact of agency, before his statements can be received.</p>

<p>Where bond and security is executed under the act of 1824, ch. — the record must show, that the defendant either paid the debt, surrendered his property, or took the oath of insolvency. If this does not appear, judgment against the defendant and his securities, is proper.</p>

This was an action of detinue, commenced in the circuit court of Giles county, by the defendant in error, to recover from the plaintiff in error, a slave by the name of Mary. From the bill of exceptions, the following facts appear: The father of the defendant in error, executed to him a deed of gift for the slave in controversy, to which there were three subscribing witnesses.

On the 14th December, 1816, the plaintiff below entered the land in controversy, in the name of the heirs of Richard Burke, which entry was surveyed 3d August, 1818, and the survey returned 12th October, 1818. On the 6th April, 1824, more than five years after the return of the survey, the defendant, Rhodes, entered fifty acres of the land under the 12 1-2 cent law. On the 15th February, 1825, he entered fifty acres more of said land, and obtained a grant in 1S26.

<p>Debt in the debit and detinet lies upon an instrument to pay a givfen sum of money, lent, which might be discharged on or before the day of payment, in cotton or tobacco.</p>

<p>Where an injunction is granted to stay a judgment at law, it operates as arelease of errors by the act of 1801, ch. 6, sec. 64.</p> <p>Where the act is pleaded to a writ of error, a replication that the plaintiff in error had dismissed his bill before the assignment of errors, is insufficient.</p>

<p>A tract of land is sold by the acre, and a bond is executed to convey it, estimating the tractto contain 197 acres. It was agreed at the time, that if there was more than 197 acres, the defendant should pay for the overplus, at the same rate he paid for the 197 acres. Upon survey there was 19 acres more: Held, that assumpsit would lie for the price of 19 acres, plaintiff having conveyed the whole tract to a third person, by the request of the defendant.</p>

In this case, the ancestor of defendants in error was originally the owner of the slaves in controversy. The plaintiff claimed them by gift from his father, and held adverse possession of them from the year 1821, until the year 1827, when the defendants in error retook them into their possession. This suit was then brought against them, and the jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict in favor of the defendants in error. Upon which judgment was rendered.

<p>The 'atter c'aase the third section of the act of 1801, cb. 25, only applies as between the loanor and loanee; therefore, five years possession of a slave which is not declared by will or by writing duly registered, although a bona fide loan, vests the property, as to creditors, with the loanee.</p>

On the 14th of February 1S24, John Lewis and the defendant executed their joint note to James Stewart, for the sum of $S,S99 02, payable the first day of November thereafter: but stipulating, that “this note might be discharged in good Kenhawa salt delivered at Nashville in good barrels, and weighed at Nashville, at the rate of one dollar and twelve and one half cents per bushel of fifty pounds.” On the 24th of March 1S24, Stewart assigned four thousand nine hundred and…

<p>When the sum demanded in the declaration is more than that laid in the writ, no advantage can be taken of the variance by the party, it would only operate to discharge the bail.</p>

Johnston assigned to Searcy and Marshall, a note executed by John Gunter for thirty-four dollars; the assignment was in these words: ££I assign the within note to Searcy and Marshall, waiving demand and notice, Jan. 1, 1830.” The note was assigned in payment of a debt due by Johnston to Searcy and Marshall. From the date of the assignment to the last of August, 1S31, a period of fifteen months, Gunter was solvent; about the latter period he became insolvent.

<p>Where a defendant has paid' a judgment, on which, nevertheless, an execution has issued, a certiorari and supersedeas is the proper remedy; in which case the court will, on motion, quash the execution.</p> <p>Where an execution issues and the whole is endeavored to be collected when it was all paid but four dollars, held, that the execution should be quashed, except for that amount, and a procedendo issue to have the balance collected.</p> <p>Where the whole amount of the judgment is attempted to be collected, and the execution is quashed, except as to part, held, that the defendant in the execution is entitled to recover his costs.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought against the defendant for money collected by William Walker, deceased, the defendant’s intestate; the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations in bar of the demand, to which the plaintiff replied generally. Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff proved that in 1824, he had placed in the hands of Wm.

<p>When the declaration alleges that a bond was executed in the penalty of $5000, and the bond set out upon oyer, shows no penalty, but is blank, as to the amount: Held, to be fatal upon demurrer.</p> <p>A demurrer brings under review the whole of the proceedings, and reaches the first substantial fault.</p>

<p>A certior.ari will not lie for bail, upon the ground that after a final judgment in the county court, (which was not appealed from,) hehadthd body of the principal taken and ready to surrender.</p>

Hall made a note to M. Bell, who transferred the same in the following words: ££I assign the within note to Johnson and Hicks, and guarantee the solvency of the maker.” The day the note fell due, the agent of plaintiffs called at the usual place of residence of the maker of the note, for the purpose of making demand, and was informed there, that he was absent on a visit to Ohio. Bell, the endorser, was informed of this, and notice was given in proper time and manner.

<p>Where suit is brought before the sum is due, and afterwards an agree-met of record is entered into, by which the defendant agrees to try the case upon its merits, and “waives all. errors,” it was held, that the commencement of the suit before the sum was due, was an error, but that it was released or waived by the agreement, and could not be insisted on by defendant.</p>

<p>A motion for judgment, under the provisions of a statute, is an “action,” and as such, is embraced within the provisions of a statute where the term “action” is used.</p> <p>A motion, founded on a delivery bond, is an “action founded on a bond forthe payment of money,” within the meaning of the act of 1827 ch. 72.</p> <p>The condition of a bond, to prosecute an appeal in the nature of a writ of error, was as follows: “now if the said A. B. and C. shall well and truly pvosecute said appeal with effect, or in case of failure therein, pay and satisfy all costs and damages that may be awarded against him for wrongfully prosecuting said appeal, then this obligation to be void.” Held, that the securities were only bound for the damages and costs, and not for the principal debt. Held, also, that judgment may be rendered against the securities for the damages and costs, by motion</p> <p>The interest of 12J per cent per annum allowed upon judgments when affirmed, is “damages” within the meaning of that term, as used in the different acts of assembly upon the subject of appeals.</p> <p>Where one of several plaintiffs in error dies and his death is suggested, and also that he has no executor or administrator, the defendant may elect to proceed against the surviving plaintiff: in error, by the provisions of the act of 1825, ch. 66, sec. 3.</p>

George Bell in his lifetime obtained judgment against M. Bell and others, which was paid to said G. Bell, except about 1800 dollars. George Bell died; the scire facias does not show when; no person administered upon his estate. In 1829 the Legislature passed an act authorizing the judgment to be revived in the name of Tate’s executors, who claimed to be the equitable owners of the judgment.

■ Brown drew a check in favor of Patterson, one month after date, on the cashier of the office of discount and deposite of the Bank of the'United States, at Nashville. This check was dated December 13, 1827. Patterson, jn whose favor it was drawn, transferred it to the defendant, Lusk, for a valuable consideration.

The record shows, that at the August term of the circuit court for Giles county, in 1827, the plaintiffs recovered a judgment quando acciderint against the administrators of N. Young for $449 58. Upon this judgment a sci. fa. issued against the widow and heirs of said Young. The heirs being under the age of twenty-one years, it was served upon the guardians of the minors, and the writs returned to the circuit court of Giles county.

In this case, the plaintiff, Guión, claims the land in controversy, by descent from Henry Winborne, his grand father in the maternal line. The record shows, that a grant for the land issued to Henry Winborne on the 7th day of March, 1784. Win-borne, the grantee, died on the 11th day of February 1795, leaving an only child, Elizabeth Winborne, then two or three years old.

The complainants claim the slave Tabby, who is mother of the other slaves, by virtue of a devise in the will of Samuel Bates,, the father of the female complainant. Tabby, the slave, came to the possession of Betsey Bates, another daughter of the testator, before the marriage of the complainants, and when the female complainant, then Polly Bates, was an infant. Betsey Bates married the defendant, who has had possession of the negroes ever since.

This was a suit brought by Duval against Butler as endorser upon a promissory note. The note was executed by Chester and Dulany at Jackson, Tenn. payable to said Butler, who lived in Jackson, or to his order at the office of discount and deposite of the Bank of the United States at New Orleans.

This was an action of ejectment, commenced by Mur-free’s heirs, against the defendants in error, Carmack and Williams. The title to the land in controversy, prior to the 17th January, 1825, was in the defendant, Oliver Williams. On the 28th January, 1825, Lucy Hickman recovered a judgment against said Williams, in the county court of Lincoln county, for the sum of-. On this judgment an execution was issued and levied oñ the land.

This was a bill filed by the plaintiffs, who aré people of color, alleging they have instituted a suit for freedom, and that they are apprehensive that the defendant will convey them away and sell them; and they pray that he be restrained, and that they be taken out of his hands, &e. An attachment was awarded, by virtue of which the plaintiffs were taken out of the custody of the defendant.

<p>To give an appellate court jurisdiction, the. record must show an appeal was prayed.</p>

Tins was an action of trespass, brought by the plain-tiffin error, Matilda, against the defendant. Pleas — Not guilty, and not guilty of the trespass, See. within one year next before the commencement of this suit.

<p>After a recovery in ejectment, trespass for the mesne profits, and not assumpsit, is the proper action.</p>

<p>Judgment against the principle and securities in a ca. sa. bond, may be rendered at the first term to which the bond is returnable, subject, nevertheless, to be set aside upon the principal coming in at any period of the term, and complying with the conditions of the bond.</p> <p>If judgment be not rendered at the return term, it may be rendered at the succeeding term.</p>

This cause was argued by W. Thompson, for plaintiff in error, and F. B. Fogg, for defendant. The latter cited 5 Hay. Reports, 4 Wheat. Rep. 75, and 4 Rand. Rep. 585.

Craven Jackson died seized and possessed of the land in controversy, in 1821. It was purchased by him of John Deatherage. He died intestate, leaving Mrs. Roberts, then Mrs. Jackson, his widow, and Carroll Jackson, an infant child by her, his heir at law.

<p>The Supreme Court will not weigh evidence, or control the court below in refusing a ne n trial, unless it shall manifestly appear that there is a great preponderance against the verdict.</p> <p>Declarations of a party, which- form no part of the transaction, made after a conveyance of property by him, are not admissible evidence.</p> <p>But if the party is examined as a witness, such declarations may be admitted to impeach his testimony.</p>

<p>The possession of land under a grant, during the pendency of a caveat filed by the party in possession, will not constitute such a possession as to form a bar under the act of limitations of 1819, ch. 28, sec. 1.</p> <p>A decree or judgment in a caveat, concludes the rights of the parties, and is admissible evidence in an ejectment, where the lessor of the plaintiff and the defendant were the parties to the caveat.</p> <p>The possession of a party pending a caveat, is subordinate to the decree or judgment rendered therein.</p>

This was an action of ejectment, commenced in 1827. The grant to the lessor of the plaintiff, Norris, is younger than the grant to Campbell, but he, Norris, relied upon an older special entry, as evidence of his superior title. The defence insisted on by Campbell, was the act of limitations of 1819, ch. 28.

The plaintiffs in error recovered judgment against the heirs of Buchanan Lanier, on the eighteenth day of October, 1831, at the October sessions, 1831, of the Davidson county court. At the same term of the same court, the defendant and several other persons, on the twenty-second of October, 1831, recovered judgments against said heirs.

Mrs. Elam, previous to her marriage, with defendant, Samuel Elam, resided in the State of Virginia. Held: that marriage articles cannot be rescinded after marriage, even by consent of both husband and wife, or by any conveyance which they can make. After an estate is vested, it is not divested by the cancelling of the deed which secures it. Lady Hudson’s case, Pr. in Ch. 1 Bro.

James Sandford, on the sixth of October, eighteen hundred and thirty, drew two bills of exchange on the firm of Cooper, Caruthers & Co. of New Orleans; one for three thousand dollars, and the other for two thousand five hundred dollars, payable six months after date, which were accepted by them, for the accommodation of said Sandford, and for the purpose of getting their said acceptance two and a half per cent was allowed; his cotton crop was also to be forwarded to them,…

The scire facias recites that Combs and others recovered against William Nash, for costs, the sum of one hundred and twenty four dollars; that aca. sa. was issued to the proper county and returned not found; and that Barry had entered himself bail by bond, conditioned that if said Nash should with effect prosecute his bill of injunction, or if he fail, pay and satisfy the judgment enjoined, and the costs of the circuit court, and the costs of the court of equity, then the…

On the thirteenth day of December, 1805, John Nich-ol, father of the plaintiff in error, conveyed to the defendant in error, two hundred and one-fourth acres of land in Williamson county, being part of a 1000 acre grant to himself.

John March was a-lessee for years; he assigned his lease to Andrew King, and King assigned his lease to Joel Rutlege, who cultivated the land. March sued King for the rent, and recovered a judgment against him. The execution on this judgment, was levied on the crop of Rutlege, who had given King a note for the rent, or had paid him. Daniel B. Walton, the defendant, was the constable who made the levy.

It appears from the record, that Lusk & Co. had brought suit against one Kenne; recovered judgment; but on final process the said Kenne proved insolvent and was discharged according to act of assembly, the costs not having been made. Ewing, being clerk of the court, brought this suit by warrant before a. justice of the peace, and presented his account for services rendef ed at the instance or request of Lusk, in the prosecution of that suit.

This was a writ of error prosecuted from the Wilson circuit court. Crutcher, one of the defendants in error, prosecuted his attachment against John Stone, for $204. The attachment issued, appears to have no seal, but was' levied by the officer upon several articles of property, all of which had been conveyed by Stone to John Hearn in trust for creditors. A garnishment issued to Hearn, and was- returned without any endorsement thereon of service.

Whitney, against whom Donnelly had obtained judgment, on which a ca. sa. had issued, gave bond and security to appear before the Bedford county court, at the February term, 1829, to take the oath of insolvency, surrender his property, or pay the debt, pursuant to the act of 1824, ch. 16. The cause was regularly continued until February term, 1830, when Whitney appeared and offered to take the oath. This was opposed by Donnelly’s counsel.

This was a scire facias against Given, founded upon a forfeiture taken against him by Duke, for not attending as a witness upon the trial of a suit between Duke and -Walker, pending in the Montgomery circuit court. The facts upon which the cause was decided are fully stated in the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by Overton’s lessee against the plaintiff in error. Overton claimed title by virtue of a grant issued to him by the State of North Carolina, dated 20th May, 1793. The defendants claimed under grants issued by the State of Tennessee, founded on entries made in 1824.

<p>In a suit upon an administration bond, the name of the individual who fills the office of Governor, need not be used; the suit may be brought by describing the plaintiff as “Governor for the time being.”</p> <p>If the name is inserted in the writ, but not in the declaration, it is not a variance.</p>

Gant recovered a judgment against William Webb, for ninety dollars and fifteen cents; the execution of this judgment was stayed by James Caperton; at the expiration of the stay, an execution was placed in the hands of William W. Haley, a constable of Williamson county, who collected the money upon it. Wells was one of Haley’s securities, for the faithful discharge of his duties as constable.

Covenant upon the following instrument: “On or before the first day of March, 1829, we, or either of us promise to pay William Ghoison or order, the sum of thirteen hundred and fifty dollar's, to be discharged on that day, in cash notes, on good solvent men in Giles county, to be due at the time, for value received. The defendant below, Brown, pleaded covenants performed, on which issue was taken.

Detinue for a siave named Wiltshire. The defendant below, Eliza Ann Davis, was married on the 12th of July, 1827, in the county of Maury, to Wm. D. Mitchel. At and before the time of this marriage, Mitchel was a married man, he having been married in Alabama previously to a certain Susan Mitchel, who, at the time he married defendant in error, was still alive.

This was an action of detinue brought by Samuel Hays against the plaintiff in error, Hardeson, to recover two slaves, Rachel and her child, which Hays claimed as his property.

In 1832 the legislature of the state of Tennessee passed a resolution in these words: “Whereas the secretary of state of North Carolina has certified that the grants numbered and dated as herein after mentioned, are fairly recorded in the books of his office; that he has searched the files of his office for the warrants on which they are founded, and has not been able to find the same: And has also certified that said warrants may have been lost or by some means destroyed,”…

This is an action of assumpsit brought to recover the price paid for a negro, on a warranty that she was a slave for life. The breach of the warranty assigned is, that she was at the time of the sale a free woman, and has since recovered her freedom. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, upon which plea issue was .taken.

In 1831 John Dwyer commenced suit in the county court of Davidson, against Joel G. Harper, upon a contract made and falling, due before that time. The capias ad respondendum was executed on the 4th of August, 1831, and the bail bond bears date on that day. Foster and Trousdale became the bail of Harper.

This was an action of trover brought by the plaintiffs in error, to recover the value of certain articles of personal property, sold by the defendant’s intestate, as sheriff of Davidson county, as the property of Alpha Kingsley, under the authority of several executions issued from the circuit and county court of Davidson county.

This is an action of assumpsit brought by Pruett, in the county court of Lincoln, against Tucker. The declaration contains several counts. In the first count, Pruett declared against Tucker as the first endorser of a certain promissory note. The others are the common counts for money paid, lent, &c. The defendant below pleaded non-assumpsit; a verdict and judgment were rendered for Pru-ett. Tucker ¿ppealed to the circuit court, and Phelps became his security in said appeal.

This was an issue made up in the county court of Mau-ry county, to try the validity of a paper purporting to he the last will of Charles Partee. It was established as his will in the county court; the defendants appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment of the county court was affirmed.

This was an action upon the case brought by Gray against Caperton, in the Williamson county court. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. A verdict and judgment were obtained by the plaintiff, Gray, in the circuit court. The defendant moved the court for a new trial, which motion was overruled.

Debt in the county court of Maury county. The defendant pleaded, first, payment; second, set off: these pleas were not drawn out, but were merely filed by writing the words payment and set off, upon the memorandum docket. The plaintiff replied by writing under the pleas, the words “replication and issues.” The jury returned a verdict for $185 debt, and $27 25 cents damages, upon which judgment was entered.

Charles Bailey, as county trustee, for the county of Montgomery, moved the county court of said county, for a judgment against John Rice, and Eli Lockhart, William A. Cook and others, as his securities, for the taxes collected by said Rice, for the years 1825 and 26, and not paid or accounted for by him. The court rendered a judgment against said Rice, and his securities, for the sum of $1533, 51-100. The securities applied-for and obtained a certiorari.

This was a motion, made by Combs against Bramlitt and others, as securities for the clerk of the circuit court of Giles county.

This was an action of detinue. The plaintiff declared for two slaves. The jury found for him, and assessed six hundred dollars as the joint value1 of the two slaves, without severing the value as to each.

On the 3d of March, 1830, John B. Anderson executed his promissory note under seal, for $54, payable one day after date, to Smith and Peebles. On the 20th August, 1830, Smith and Peebles transferred by endorsement the said note to Wallace and Hobbs for value received, and waived demand and notice.

The bill of exceptions in this case shows that William Milton and Philip Milton were together in the store of the plaintiffs, in Columbia; that the defendant, Philip, told the plaintiff, that whatever goods William Milton took up in the store, he, the defendant, would pay for out of a cotton contract, which the plaintiffs and defendant were about to make.; that the articles were delivered to William Milton, after the promise made by the defendant, and on the same day; that…

This was a petition to the county court of Smith county, by Robert Allen and others, to lay off and open a road. The road, as contemplated, would have run through the land of Williams; he applied to the court and was admitted a defendant.

A capias ad satisfaciendum issued upon a judgment for $37 50, recovered by McIntyre against Joseph Hal-ford; which being executed upon him, he, together with Bradly Halford, executed the following bond: “ Know all men by these presents, that we, Joseph Halford and Bradly Halford, are each held and firmly bound unto C. McIntyre, in the penal sum of seventy-five dollars; to he void upon condition that the said Joseph Halford make his personal appearance at the court house in…