Volume 13 — Tennessee Reports

The defendants in error brought this action of trover and conversion against the plaintiff in error, to recover the value of a number of slaves alleged by them to be their property. The suit was commenced on the first day of May, 1828. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The slaves in controversy, or their immediate progenitors, originally belonged to Col. Wm. Terril of South Carolina.

This suit was instituted on the following bond: “I acknowledge myself indebted lo John Nixon, jun. in the sum of three hundred dollars, for the due andfaithfulpayment of which I bind myself, my heirs, &c. sealed with my seal, the 27th March, 1820.

This was an action of ejectment commenced in the circuit court of Bedford-county, on the 18th day of May, 1829, by the heirs of Jenkin Whiteside, dec’d. against Dolly Singleton, the tenant in… Held: in the same book, page 22, Bradford vs. Hill. It has also received the sanction of this court in a very late case.

On the 10th of November, 1825, Wheaton sold to East lot No. 15, and conveyed to him by general warran-tee deed, for a full and fair price, to wit, upwards of ,$4000. Held: that to revive a demand once barred, requires an express acknowledgement that the debt is still due, and an express promise to pay it.

This was an action upon the case, brought by Ridley against Nichol. There were several counts in the declaration.

This is an action brought by Thompson and Drennen against Dunlap, as the endorser of a promissory note. A verdict and judgment in the county and circuit court were rendered for Thompson and Drennen. The only question presented by the record was, whether the notice given to Dunlap, as an endorser, was sufficient to charge him.

This is an action, on the case brought by Buchanan and Porterfield against Gordon and Walker, in the circuit court of Davidson, for negligence in transporting goods from Pittsburgh to Nashville, belonging to the plaintiffs, by which they sustained damage.

Debt brought by John Wyche, for the use of John Saddler, next friend of Susan F. Saddler and her husband, John Jennings, in the county court of Rutherford. Held: that a judgment obtained by attachment, in another State, where there was no personal service of process, will not sustain a suit here, although it may operate as a general judgment in the State where rendered.

In 1820, defendant sued David King, obtained a judgment which Leiper stayed. Stay was out 10th May, 1821; execution issued 11th; officer went to King; Coleman paid 010, and promised to pay the rest soon; officer told Erwin of this, who said well, do not press the execution until I tell you. He never told the officer to push, but waited until 1829, Coleman being dead, and then took out this execution against Leiper, whq brought it up by certiorari.

<p>Where an appeal is prayed from the judgment of the county court, upon a sci. fa. to revive a judgment, the judgment must be given against the principal and his security in the appeal, upon the finding of the jury, and not that he have execution of his judgment.</p> <p>The verdict of a jury in these words, “do find for the plaintiff,” is no response to an issue; but if there be no sufficient issue in the record, but judgment be given on the finding for the plaintiff, it will not be disturbed.</p>

In July 1788, a grant issued to John Cocke for 5000 acres, in Maury county. On the 1st August 1809, a grant issued to Hunt and Herndon for 3000 acres, in the same pounty. In September 1811, commissioners divided the 3000 acres between Etunt and Herndon, assigning the south end to Hunt. The Cocke grant being the older and better title, interfered with the Herndon grant to the amount of 1181 acres. Gordon had purchased from Cocke, and from Herndon 164 acres of the interference.

Henderson sued the Nashville Bank for the sum of $160, and declared in debt on sundry notes issued'by that corporation, none of which exceeded the sum of twenty dollars. They were all payable to bearer. Demand had been made by Henderson, as bearer, at the principal bank, though some of the notes were made payable at branches of that bank.

This cause commenced in the county court; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff’s: appeal to the circuit court; verdict and judgment in that court, and “appeal” to the supreme court of errors and appeals. The bond is taken to prosecute an appeal in the nature of a writ of error. It is here moved by the appellant, to dismiss the cause from the docket, because brought up simply as an appeal.

Porter warranted Wheaton. On the trial, Wheaton's account was the larger by three dollars eighteen cents. The justice gave judgment for the amount for defendant. This occurred 18th May, 1827. On the 6th June, Porter applied to two justices to bring the cause into the county court.

This is an action on the case commenced in the county court. The declaration set forth, that Bachus, on the 26th August, 1829, according to the usage of merchants, made his bill of exchange and directed the same to Richmond, thereby requesting him at sight to pay to the order of the cashier of the office of the Bank of the United States in Lexington, the sum of two hundred dollars, and delivered said bill to J. Harper, cashier of said office of said Bank.

In 1818, Miriam M. Lewis recovered judgment in the Davidson county court, against Wm. Rutherford, for 0418. In 1829, Rutherford recovered against Crabb and wife, a judgment for 0361 56; the first judgment was offered to be set off against the last by Crabb and wife. Mrs. Lewis, after 1818, intermarried with Crabb; Rutherford had sued her as administratrix of Joel Lewis, and recovered against her and Crabb a judgment in this right.

John P. Thomas was the owner of a tract of land containing 308 acres, lying in Sumner county; he executed a lease to William Dickinson for said tract of land, for the term of twenty years;… Held: that a conveyance by writing, without deed,,was insufficient. See Catlin vs. Jackson, 8 Johns. Rep. 3. But suppose a sheriff’s deed is necessary. If it is not procured for seven or eight years, will if, when procured, relate to the sale, and defeat rights acquired in the meantime?

The following facts are agreed by the plaintiff and defendant in this cause. 1.

Rutherford, in August 1817, gave a bond to Pillow to procure him a warrantee deed within twelve months, for the east half of a 5000 acre tract, granted to John Rutherford, on Forked Deer river; or in lieu thereof, another tract of equal value. Consideration is stated to be §1250. The deed was not procured; suit was brought, and damages and judgment recovered- for §7000, at the. April term of the Williamson county court, in 1820.

In the year 1824, an act of assembly was passed, authorizing the drawing of a lottery, for the purpose of building a Masonic Hall in the town of Columbia; Booker, M5G-uire, Nelson, Grove and Dale were appointed managers.

The complainant in this case alleges in his bill, that the slave levied upon by defendant, as the property of his son, belongs to him, and did belong to him at the time of the levy, and prays for a perpetual injunction. The defendant insists that the slave is the propertj'- of complainant’s son, and was given to him by complainant, and denies that complainant had any right to him when-levied on.

The indictment in this case charges that the defendant below played and betted at cards, and encouraged and promoted the playing and betting at cards for money and other valuable things. The defendant below pleaded not guilty.

A man by the name of Boon, on his way to the Arkansas, camped near Mr. Shelton’s, in Davidson county; during the night, he had stolen from his wagon, bank notes and some specie, amounting to four hundred and fifty dollars. In the morning he had several of the neighbor’s negroes taken up, on suspicion of having taken the money, (they having been seen about the place on the evening before, and at night;) among them was Bob, the negro of Mrs. Wright, the mother of defendant.

This was an indictment against the plaintiff in error, for extortion, as the clerk of a court.

<p>Upon the suggestion of a diminution in the record of a State cause before the assignment of errors, a certiorari will be awarded to bring up a more perfect record, and the defendant held to bail for his appearance at some future day of the term.</p>

The scire facias in this case states, that the plaintiffs in error entered into a recognizance at the June term, 1828, for the appearance at the December term following, of Louis Stanislaus de St. Leger, to answer the State upon an indictment for an assault and battery; and that at the said December term the plaintiffs in error were called, and failed to come and bring with them the body of the said St. Leger, whereby they forfeited their recognizance, and that a judgment…

The defendant was called to'answer upon a presentment, which charged that he did unlawfully wager and bet fifty dollars, in bank notes, on the event of a certain election, then pending between Hiding and Henry, candidates to represent the county of Montgomery in the general assembly. On a second count, it was charged that he unlawfully did wager and bet money on the event of said election.

The plaintiff in error was indicted-for a riot committed with other persons. The evidence shows he was clearly guilty of the riot. The record in this case shows that the vénire returned by the sheriff, only directed him to summon twenty-four persons; that from these twenty-four, the grand jury was elected and empanelled.

The petitioner below, Mrs. Farnsworth and her predecessors, who were owners of the land she occupies, have kept a ferry across the Nólichucky river for many years, without having it established by an order of court as a public ferry; but the boat being out of'repair, some months elapsed during which no ferry was kept.

Shugart sued out an attachment against Orr, returnable to the county court, and declared against him in debt. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that both plaintiff and defendant were, at the time of beginning the action, citizens of the State of Virginia. To this plea there was a demurrer, which on argument was sustained; the plea overruled, and pleas to the action put in. Trial and judgment for the plaintiff; writ of error to the circuit court.

The defendant was sued as a guarantor of Joseph Cooper, who purchased one hundred dollars worth of bacon from plaintiffs. The instrument on which it is sought to charge Rutledge, is in these words: “Blountville, April 17th, 1828. Dear Sir: Mr. Cooper has informed me -y-ou have one thousand or fifteen hundred pounds ofbacori for sale, and he wishes to purchase that amount.

Rogers agreed with Buler, that his stallion horse should go to the mare of Buler gratis, provided the produce should be the property of Pleasant Blevins, an infant. The mare was put and brought a colt. M’Carty, the defendant below, purchased the mare and colt from Buler. Blevins, the infant, by his next friend, sued M’Carty in an action of trover for the colt, and upon the trial in the court below had a verdict.

Judgment was had against the administrator of Goine. The plea of fully administered having been found in his favour, scire facias was run against the heirs. They pleaded that the intestate was not indebted. Issue was taken, and the plea found against them. The court gave judgment that the plaintiff have execution against the real estate which descended to the heirs of William Goine, for the damages assessed by the jury, and for the costs.

Stanley advanced to Ball and paid for himl^tgral shim of money, for the security of which Ball pledgecTto^iimi the horse in dispute. Stanley afterwards purchased a debt of thirty-seven dollars on Ball, but without any agreement or understanding with Ball that the horse should be retained in pledge for that sum also. Ball tendered to Stanley the whole sum due, as originally advanced on the pledge, and offered to redeem the horse.

This was a motion against a constable. The proof was, that an execution against the body of Coalter had issued from before a justice of the peace, and had been placed in the hands of Wells, a constable. Coalter was arrested, but he forcibly made his escape. Another ca. sa. was then issued, and was put in the hands of Wells. This was never returned. On, these facts the court refused to give judgment. Appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this court.

This is a petition for a divorce. The petitioner was born and raised in Tennessee. She married in Virginia^ and with her husband, the defendant, came and lived in Blountville for five years. Fickle was arrested for a criminal offence committed against the post office laws of the United States, was convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for ten years in the jail of Jonesboro.

In February, 1820, Gann sold to Chester a plantation of three hundred and fifty acres, a grist and saw mill, situate in Washington county, for eight thousand dollars.

This was an action of slander brought by Nations against Wilson, the present plaintiff in error, in the Claiborne circuit court. The declaration alleges, that the delendant charged the plaintiff with having sworn to a lie upon the trial of the case of the State vs. Leander Leach, upon a warrant before a justice of the peace.

Harris brought an action of covenant against Brawner, on a note to pay two hundred and fifty dollars in current bank notes, on or before the third day of October, 1831. The breach assigned is, that the said Brawner did not pay on or before said 3d day of October, 1831, but by his failure so to do, has broken his covenant.

This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover two tracts of land in Grainger county. Upon the trial, in the court below, the plaintiff read in evidence to the jury, a deed of conveyance from the sheriff of Grainger county, founded on a sale of the land by virtue of several fieri faciases against the defendant. The defendant then proved, that the sheriff did not, before the sale, give him twenty days notice, as required by the act of assembly.

The present defendant, Rodgers, commenced his action of forcible entry and detainer, before two justices of the peace, for a tract of land in Knox county, particularly described in the proceedings, and upon a trial before said two justices of the peace and a jury, a verdict was render-ecj and judgment given for said Rodgers against said Jane Marley; ^nd afterwards the proceedings in this cause were removed by certiorari to the circuit court of Knox county, and at the term of…

On the twenty-ninth day of May 1830, a warrant was issued by a justice of the peace, in the name of Sylvanus E. Benson, Samuel Hunt and John Patterson, against John C. Gunn, the present plaintiff in error. On the twenty-second day of June 1830, a judgment was given on a note made payable by said Gunn to “Benson, Hunt & Co.” and upon which the warrant was issued, -for forty-two dollars and forty-six cents.

In this case the counsel for the plaintiff tendered to the circuit judge for signature a hill of exceptions, on his refusing to grant a new trial. This stated only so much of the charge (entirely omitting the evidence) as to show that the judge had not charged the jury as requested, on particular points raised by the counsel in his argument to the jury.

This was an action of ejectment instituted by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, for the recovery of six hundred and fifty acres of land. The writ was returned to November term, 1831, of the circuit court for Monroe county, and at November term, 1832, a trial was had, and verdict for the plaintiff below.

On the 8th of December, 1825, the testator, Hogshead, commenced an action of debt in the county court of Monroe county, against Jones Griffin. At December session, 1826, judgment was rendered against Griffin for $112 53.

John Blair filed his petition in the supreme court, stating that the lessee of the Pathkiller prosecuted an action of ejectment for three tracts of land against James Blair, who during the pendency of the suit died, and the same was revived against said James Blair’s executors, and upon being tried, a judgment was given for the lessee of Pathkiller, and a writ of possession awarded; from this judgment an appeal was prayed and granted to the supreme court of this State, when…

The record in this cause shows, that a warrant issued from a justice of the peace for Claiborne county, summoning M’Clain to appear and answer Kincaid of a plea of debt, claimed by him, of fifty-nine dollars. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff for fifty-nine dollars debt, and twenty dollars interest; from which judgment M’Clain appealed to the circuit court.

On the lOihday of November, 1832, Posey caused to be issued a capias ad respondendum against M’Cubbins; on the 28th day of December, 1832, he was arrested) and gave bail for his appearance.

This was a caveat filed by Hatfield to prevent the Issuance of a grant upon the entry and survey of Vaughn and Brown. The facts of this case, as found by the jury upon the issues submitted to them, areas follows: The entry of Hatfield, the caveator, for 100 acres, was made the 17th December, 1826, and the survey made thereon 23d January, 1828. The entry of Brown and Vaughn, the caveatees, for two hundred acres, was made 4th February, 1826, and was surveyed 2d June, 1829.

The complainant filed his bill in this case, in the circuit court of Monroe county, on the 21st of September, 1831. The answers were filed at the November term, following; at the same term a motion was made by the defendants to dissolve the injunction on the bill and answers, which was done accordingly.

John Alexander and Matthew M’G-ee had a debt on John Lowry, and held a mortgage on a tract of land belonging to Lowry, called Cabbin Smith’s reservation, to secure the debt. Thomas Henderson held a younger mortgage on the same land, and filed his bill to foreclose. A sale was decreed on the 27th of July 1830, giving John Lowry six months to pay the money.

The indictment in this case charges the defendant with an assault and battery with intent to kill. It was found the 2d May, 1882, and charges the offence to have been committed the 28th August, 1880. The defendant pleaded as a bar to the prosecution, that the offence was com-rmtted more than one year before the indictment was found.

This is an action upon the case, brought against the defendants as common carriers, for an injury done to some com by the sinking of a boat.

Foster and Barkly were the securities of Barkly and Foster, who were merchants, to a sealed note for ‡315, payable to Samuel Owens. When the note fell due, Foster paid it. This action is brought in the name of Foster, for the use of Bowman, in assumpsit against Cage, the-executor of Barkly, the co-security, to recover the moiety of the sum paid by Foster. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. Upon the trial the payment by Foster of the money was proved.

This was an action of deceit, brought to recover for selling to the plaintiff a disordered horse as sound. Thé action is against Lee and Lowe. The proof is, that thb horse was sold for a full price, eighty dollars in trade'. That he had the stiff disorder, and was worth little or nothing. The horse belonged to Lee, and was known to him to be diseased; Lowe acted as the agent of Lee, in selling the horse, and did not know that he' was diseased.

This was a warrant issued to summon James Brown to answer the complaint of Solomon C. Parris, on a plea of trespass, to his damage in a sum under twenty dollars. The warrant does not state the nature of the trespass, nor the property trespassed upon. The suit was tried before two justices of the peace under the act of 1829, ch. 24, who gave judgment for the defendant.

This was an action of detinue tried in the circuit court „ of Smith county, before John H. Martin, Esq. At the time this cause was tried, judge Williams was.tlie constitutionally elected judge of the circuit embracing Smith county. It was objected that John H. Martin, Esq. had no power or authority to sit and hear said cause. He was appointed by virtue of the act of 1827, ch. 37.

This is an action of ejectment, brought by the lessee of Hunt against Clark, to recover the possession of 148 acres of land. The plaintiff read a grant to his lessor, from the State of Tennessee, for the land in dispute, and proved the defendant to have been in possession of the premises at the institution of the suit. He also read an entry for the land, dated after 29th of May, 1824, and rested his case.

This suit was brought to recover a slave. The plaintiff proved that the slave had been given to him whilst an infant; that at the time of malting the gift, possession of the slave was given to his guardian, and that he had remained with his guardian for three years and more before he came to the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff did not produce any deed or bill of sale which had been registered, none having been made.

In tlie declaration in this cause, it is alleged, tliat the defendants, on the seventh of February 1828, sold to Edward Hogan, plaintiff’s testator, two negroes, Betsy and Becky; that by his covenant in writing, under seal, they warranted Betsy to be about thirty-five years of age, and Rebecca to be about sixteen, and that both said slaves were sound. Averment, that Rebecca was unsound, and that Betsy was forty-five years of age. Plea, covenants performed and issue.

This suit was commenced before a justice of'the peace, and judgment given against the defendants. They filed a petition for a certiorari and supersedeas, alleging that part of the judgment was usurious, and obtained them.

On the sixteenth.of October 1829, a warrant issued in favour of Irwin and Vick, against Julius Sanders, to appear before a justice of the peace, &c. Which warrant having been executed and returned, a judgment for the plaintiffs was rendered on the seventh of November 1829; whereupon Sanders appealed to. the circuit court, and executed his bond with Alexander B. Lane, his security, in the penal sum of sixty dollars, to be void on condition he “prosecute” “an appeal by him…

A judgment was rendered in this case, in the county .court of White, in favour of the defendants in error, against Jenkins, for $683 44 cents debt and damages, from which he took an appeal, in the nature of a writ of error, to the circuit court. The other plaintiffs in error became his security for the appeal. The appeal bond recites that the judgment was for $¡620 08, and is taken in the penalty of $1241 08.

This was an action upon the case, brought by Hogan against Lane, to recover the price of a horse sold to Lane. There are three counts in the declaration, all of which are in tort. To these the general issue is pleaded.

In this case there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; a motion for a new trial having been overruled, the defendant appealed in error to this court. _ The facts are, that George Armstrong, the testator of plaintiffs, and the defendant, Harrison, made a contract by which Armstrong was to pay the defendant four hundred dollars in cash notes, accounts, judgments and pork, for which defendant was to let him have a negro girl.

Gore and Bledsoe were the acting executors of Harris. Gore left the county of Overton on a trading excursion to New Orleans, with an intention of returning, at that time being the clerk of Overton county court. He remained at New Orleans some six or eight weeks and returned. During his absence, Huddleston»eued out a writ against bis co-executor, Bledsoe. Bledsoe plead these facts in abatement; the plea was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained.

Erwin sued Smith in the county court, where a judgment was taken against Smith for the debt and interest. Smith appealed to the circuit court, and Skillern became his security in the appeal bond. The bond recites the judgment, and is conditional that the parties pay the “costs and damages,” and is silent as to the debt.

The defendant in error held a note on the plaintiff in error, for a sum not within the jurisdiction of a justice. They afterwards agreed, in order to give a justice of the peace jurisdiction, to make several small notes within his jurisdiction. This being done, the justice gave judgment against the plaintiff in error on each note separately, From these several judgments the plaintiff in error appealed to the circuit court of White county.

Settle, Whitley and Smith sued the plaintiff in error, before a justice of the peace. The warrant issued on 26th December, 1833, against William Atkinson, the plaintiff in error, as executor 'of Henry H. Atkinson. William Atkinson qualified as executor in October, 1830, more than two years before the institution of this suit.

Price was the holder of a note endorsed by Durham for the accommodation of the maker. Price failed to make demand of the maker in due time and give Durham, the endorser, notice.

This was an action of detinue brought by Rowan against Haley; plea, non-detinet. Upon trial it appeared that the plaintiff, Rowan, had loaned a mule to Henry Rowan to make a crop; Henry disposed of the mule to Haley. Demand was made of Haley of the mule, and.it was not delivered; whereupon this action was brought. Haley had sold the mule before '.a demand was made or suit brought.

The record does not show that ever Price (though he was notified by the casual ejector) entered into the consent rule, gave security for the costs, or pleaded a plea, other than an entry on the docket in these words: “common rule, not guilty and issue.” Under the charge of the judge, a verdict was had for the plaintiff, and a new trial refused. The defendant appealed in error to this court. 1.

This action is brought by Glasscock, the administrator of Lane, to recover some property sold by the sheriff, on an execution against Lane, under the following circumstances: A judgment was rendered against Lane in his lifetime; after the rendition of the judgment, he died; a term of the court passed after his death, and the judgment was not revived. The execution issued after the term had passed, tested of a term subsequent to the death of Lane.

This is an action of covenant, brought by Yowell against Hopkins, on a bond executed on the fourth of February 1826, by the latter to the former, by which, in consideration of one hundred dollars, Hopkins bound himself to convey to Yowell twenty acres of land, Cion receiving the consideration aforesaid in full. ” Averment, that the consideration had been paid. Breach, that defendant had not conveyed, though requested to do so. The plea was covenants performed.

This was a contested will. On the trial in the county court, the record shows, that the verdict was rendered in favor of the will, by eleven jurors only; upon which finding judgment was given. A general appeal was prayed and granted, and the cause taken to the circuit court. The circuit court refused to reverse the finding in the county court, because the verdict was rendered by eleven jurors; to which refusal, exception was filed.

Scanland was entry taker of Jackson county, and gave bond and security to pay the money received by him. He and his securities were sued in debt, upon their bond for the non-payment by Scanland, of moneys which came into his hands as entry taker. Smith had been, by the Legislature, appointed a commissioner to examine the books of entry takers, and ascertain from them the extent of their liabilities. He performed the duty.

William Martin obtained a judgment against Matthews before a justice of the peace; an execution issued upon that judgment and was placed in the hands of Jesse Martin, which he levied upon the property of Matthews. Macky and Smith agreed to be.security for its delivery, but executed no bond. The property notbeing delivered, an execution was taken out against the property of Matthews, Smith and Macky, and levied upon the property of Smith.

This cause having been tried, a verdict and judgment was given for the plaintiffs. It was an action of debt, founded on a record from Virginia. After the verdict was had, the defendant applied for a new trial, and applied for leave to amend the pleadings.

Peter Elrod had sued Young, in assumpsit; pending the action in the circuit court, Elrod departed this life, and bis death was suggested, February term, 1831.

This is an action of ejectment, brought to recover an Indian reservation, made under the treaties of 1817 and 1819, by the lessor of the plaintiff. The proof shows, that the lessor of the plaintiff registered his name with the Cherokee agent, for a reservation of 640 acres of land east of the Mississippi, ceded to the United States, within the time limited under the treaties of 1817 and 1819. The only evidence offered to prove this fact was the certificate of registry.

The controversy as agreed, is where the true south boundary of a tract of one hundred and fifty acres, granted to Thomas Hopkins, shall be fixed.

The indictment in this case, was for murder in the form of the indictment at common law, except that it conclu-dechsontraiy to the form of the statute. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Upon the trial, it appeared that the defendant was in possession of a tract of land, to which he claimed to have title; that Wilson, the deceased, as agent of some one in North Carolina, claimed the land.

At the May term of the circuit court for the county of White, an indictment was found against the plaintiff in error, in substance-as follows: The grand jurors for the State, &c. upon their oath,- present that William Simpson, labourer, on the first day of April, in the year of our Lord 1833, with force and arms, at the county of White aforesaid, being arrayed in a warlike manner, then and there in a certain public street and highway situtate, unlawfully, and to the great…

The grand jury found a presentment against the defendant for gaming, whether on the view of some of the-jury, or upon the evidence of a witness, the face of the presentment does not show. The attorney general for the State endorsed on the presentment, that it had been found on the evidence of John Argo, sworn in open court, and sent to the grand jury.- The county court quashed it. The solicitor appealed, and the circuit court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The question in this case arose upon a motion to tax the costs. This cause had been tried before John H. Martin, Esq. special judge. A judgment was pronounced in favor of the defendant, from which the State appealed.

The presentment in this case charged, that Brown and several others (who were named in the indictment) had been engaged in gaming and betting at cards, &c. The defendant, Brown, pleaded not guilty. Upon the trial, it appeared that Brown had been concerned in gaming, but not with those persons named in the presentment.

This case depended wholly upon the construction of the will of William T. Lewis. Amongst other devises and bequests, is the following: “Also my will is, that all the remaining part of my lands, not sold or otherwise disposed of, be equally divided between my surviving daughters.

This was an action on the case, brought in the Davidson Circuit Court, commenced in April, 1814. The writ was against Wilson only. A declaration was filed at the return term. The first count was on an m-debitatus assumpsit for thirteen thousand dollars: second count, for a like sum laid out and expended. Plea, non-assumpsit.

This cause had been before the Supreme Court at Charlotte, June term, 1823. The disposition then made of it will be seen in Peck’s Reports, 212.

This is a motion to make a sheriff liable for not returning an execution which was put into his hands, and which appears, by the affidavit of Bumpass, to have been satisfied by his receipt of the money. The execution issued October 20th, 1824, and has not been returned, either there, or here. By the act of 1824, he should have returned this execution to the Supreme Court at this place.

Green Hill sued Jason Thompson, in the Rutherford circuit court, in ejectment, for a tract of land, and judgment was given for the lessor of the plaintiff. Thompson filed his bill in the Rutherford circuit court, for an injunction, which was granted. Some terms passed of that court; the cause came on for hearing, when the bill was dismissed, and Thompson prayed an appeal to this court, which has been for some time pending here.

In this case the petition charges the husband with cruel treatment, turning away the wife from his house, and adultery with other women. The prayer of the petition is for alimony, with a prayer for general relief. There is no prayer for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The answer denies the substantial allegations in the bill, upon which an issue is joined by replication.

Hooper was indicted in the county court of Bedford, for the crime of perjury; he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and when a jury was called to pass upon his case, he insisted on peremptory challenges, and did challenge to the number of twelve. The court refused the prisoner any challenge, and the twelve jurors were sworn against the consent of the prisoner. There was a conviction, and writ of error to this court.

Walker sued Jones and Kimbro upon a receipt or agreement, in these words: “We have received from-Walker, three’hogsheads of tobacco, which .we will freight for him to New Orleans, and if they bear inspection, pay him the price they may sell for, on our return.” The receipt was signed by Jones and Kimbro. The suit was tried before a justice of the peace, who gave judgment for the plaintiff.

This suit was brought by warrant, before a justice of the peace, to recover for a delinquency in not attending and working on a public highway, on notice given by the overseer to do so.

Dougherty gave his note to M’Lemore, in these words: “$587 50. On or before the 25th of December next, I promise to pay John C. M’Lemore, or order, live hundred and fifty-seven dollars fifty cents, which may be discharged in good, clean, merchantable baled cotton, at the market price, delivered at Reynoldsburg, or Ross’ ferry on Tennessee river, for value received. Witness my hand and seal, this 30th of April 1824.

This was a case tried before a justice of the peace on a warrant against two persons, to wit, Julin and Cockran; return, “executed on the within;” judgment in favor of the plaintiff for thirty seven dollars and eighty seven cents; appeal prayed to the circuit court and granted; appeal bond given by Julin, with one security: the cause docketed in the circuit court “Cooly vs. Julin,” and in that form trial had: verdict and judgment against Julin, and from that judgment this…

In 1826, Edwards was the owner of forty eight acres of land, holden by grant. Adjoining to it, there was vacant land belonging to the United Slates. Batts resided near the granted land of Edwards. On the 23d day of January, 1827, Batts had' an occupant claim surveyed, including the vacant land up to Edwards’ line. On the 29th day of January, 1827, Edwards entered thirty one acres, as a preference, by way of enlargement to his forty eight acre tract.

This was a suit commenced in the county court of Henry county, by Pettibone against Burton; a judgment was given against Burton, who prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court, and gave security. In the circuit court the judgment of the court below was affirmed, and judgment entered against Burton and his securities in appeal.

Debt upon a writing obligatory in these words: “Three months after date, we, Robert Powell, John Jenkins, &c. commissioners, appointed by the county court of Weakley county, to let a bridge on the north side of the Obi.on river, for which they (meaning the court) appropriated a sufficient sum out of the navigation tax, already collected, promise to pay John W. Finch two hundred and fifty dollars for said bridge, if erected according to the plan,” &c. The declaration avers…

This is covenant brought twenty-fifth of June 1828, on a sealed instrument, to pay on the twenty-fifth of December 1828, with interest, whatever two hundred acres of land (describing it) might be adjudged to be worth, by persons to be chosen, &c. and when such valuation was made, it was covenanted, that M’Kinnie would give his note to pay as aforesaid.

This was an action of debt, against the maker and endorser of a note under seal, in the following words: “On the first day of November next, I promise to pay John Reader, or order, one hundred and sixty-seven dollars fifty cents, for value received. Witness my hand and seal, this twenty-ninth day of April 1824. To be paid-in North Carolina banknotes.” The note,is set out in the declaration, which is demurred to; to the demurrer there is a joinder.

The bill charges that the plaintiff and defendant were the securities of one Yerell, to the Bank of North Carolina, at Raleigh, in the sum of one hundred and ninety-eight dollars. That the manner of transacting business in that bank, was, for him who wished to have a note discounted, to have it executed by the principal and one of the securities, payable to the other security, whp endorsed to the bank. Tansel and Verell made the note to Pepin, who endorsed.

Allen was indicted in the county of Shelby, for the murder of Jones. The proof appears to have been, that Allen lived on the Arkansas side of the Mississippi, opposite Memphis; that he, and J. Reaves, had crossed the river, and were in Memphis, on the twenty-seventh day of March last. J. Reaves, the witness, being at the landing, the deceased asked him where Allen was.

The county court of Hardeman fined Mr. Martin twenty five dollars for a contempt; from which he prayed an appeal in the nature of a writ of error, 'to the circuit court, where the judgment was affirmed; a writ of error was prosecuted to .this court.

In this case, the plaintiff in error was indiGte'd in the circuit court of Henry county for the murder of-Broach, was tried, convicted, and moved for anew trial on several grounds. His motion was overruled, and sentence of death being passed upon him, he appealed in error to this court.

This was an action of covenant, by Quarles against Bell, upon an agreement in the words and figures following, to wit: “For value received, 1 promise and oblige myself, my heirs, &c. to make unto William Quarles, of the town of Nashville, his heirs, &c. a good and sufficient deed of ’ ° ^ c , conveynance, containing covenants ot general warranty, to any one of all my lots of ground (except two lots next adjoining the lot on which'John C. M’Lemore now lives) lying in the…

The bill was filed the twentieth of February 1824, and charges, that about the twenty-sixth of September 1820, complainant made a contract with defendant, Bear-den, for the purchase of a tract of land, lying on the south side of Holston river, represented by Bearden to contain six hundred and forty acres, for the price of three thousand dollars.