Volume 14 — Tennessee Reports

This is a bill in equity filed by the complainant, M’Minn, against the defendants, praying that two notes under seal, each for two hundred and fifty dollars, may be decreed to be delivered up and… Held: that it cannot be used as evidence of an admission that necessaries were furnished to that amount. Ingledewvs. Douglass, 3 Com. Law Rep. 233: Bing-ham, 20.

The bill states that the ancestor of the complainants, Thomas Yeatman, and the defendants, Joseph and Robert Woods, were partners in a banking and exchange house; that certain real estate, mentioned in said bill, was purchased with the partnership funds, for partnership purposes; that it was used and treated by the partners as partnership stock, and that the deeds and title papers were made in the partnership name and style; that this property consists'schiefly of a banking…

This bill was filed by the complainant to enjoin the defendant from selling certain slaves, levied upon by virtue of an execution founded upon a judgment obtained by defendant against John L. Young.

On the 25th April, 1829, the complainants filed their bill in the circuit court of Wilson county, to reach the equitable interest which defendant Stewart had to a tract of land of one hundred and ten acres, averring that Stewart had an equitable estate in it; that the legal title was in William New; that Stewart, to defraud his creditors, procured New to take up the old bond and execute anew one to Tazewell Mitchell, the son-in-law of Stewart, and that Stewart was utterly…

The bill states, that on the 25th of April, ISIS, complainant signed two notes as security for Nathaniel Moody, payáble to James Perry, for six hundred and twenty five dollars each, due twelve months after date, at which-time Moody was solvent, possessed of considerable estate, real and personal.

The hill charges, that on the 10th of May, 1825, Brun-son, by his written covenant, bound himself to make to. complainant a deed in fee simple to a tract of land, belonging to the heirs of John Shelby, in consideration of certain services to be done by complainant, and exhibits the writing. In the bond no time is fixed for the deed to be made.

The bill charges that Lyon made his will, which is exhibited, and died in 1827; that the will was proved, and complainant and defendant Vick qualified as executors. That the assets not specifically devised, amounted to only $720, and the testator’s debts amounted to $2,650.

Jones W. Allen and Almyra M’Kay were about to enter into the bonds of matrimony in September, 1830, and in view of that event, a marriage contract was made between them, whereby the property of said Almyra, consisting of some lands and one negro girl, was conveyed to Matthew Allen, the father of the intended husband, in trust “to secure to the said Almyra, and her heirs,” for her sole use and benefit, the said property “free from and beyond the control of the debts and…

The bill states that Ross the complainant, on or about the 20th December, 1826, sold to defendant Whitson, a tract of land containing ninety acres, for the consideration of four hundred and fifty dollars, for the payment of which the said Whitson executed two promissory notes, payable to the complainant, each for $225, one payable on the 1st of March, 1827, the other on the 1st of March, 1828; that suits were commenced upon these notes in December, 1828, and judgments…

This is a hill filed on the 3d of February, 1833, by the complainants, for themselves and others, creditors of George Bacchus, deceased, against the administrator and heir of said Bacchus, and other creditors, praying that the real estate, descended to the heir in the State of Tennessee, part of which is an equity of redemption,, may be divided pro rata among all the creditors who have brought suit in this State, the personal estate being wholly exhausted, and the real…

The bill in this case alleges, that in the year 1823, defendant Ross commenced a negotiation with the complainant for the purchase of a tract of land containing about six hundred acres, lying in the county of Bedford; that complainant being ignorant of the value of the land, agreed with Ross to select four disinterested and impartial men who lived near the land, to fix and ascertain its value, which when ascertained complainant agreed to receive from said Ross as the…

This was an appeal from the decree of the circuit court of Davidson county, refusing to rescind a contract for the sale of a lot situated in the town of Nashville. The evidence and facts upon which the opinion of the court is predicated, are fully stated in the opinion as delivered by Judge Green.

This is a writ of error prosecuted from a decree rendered in the chancery court at Columbia, on the 6th March, 1832. The bill states, that complainant is the only heir at law of Col. Patton, a Colonel in the North Carolina line during the revolutionary war.

This is a bill in equity, filed on the 2d October, 1830, in which the complainant states, that in 4pril 1827, he recovered a judgment against defendant, Lanier, for thirteen hundred and ten dollars forty cents, and five dollars sixty five cents costs, upon which execution issued and was returned to the July se&sion of the county court of Davidson, “No property found.” The bill further alleges, that this judgment was obtained by complainant, for money paid by him as the…

This is a writ of error prosecuted from a decree rendered in the chancery court holden at Franklin. The facts are very fully and accurately stated in the opinion of the court.

On the 31st day of July, 1827, Peter Fisher, of the county of Sumner, made and published his last will and testament, and therein, among other things, provided and directed as follows, to wit: ££I give my negroes all of them their freedom, and a right to live on my tract of land fifteen years; also, there is to be laid out of my present crop one year’s support; there is to be laid off a sufficient quantity of horses, cows, hogs and farming utensils for them to make a…

In this cause it appears from the pleadings and proof, that on the 10th day of July, 1802, William T. Lewis and Matthew Brooks made an agreement of that date under their hands and seals, reciting that William T. Lewis had recovered a judgment against the heirs of John Armstrong for upwards of fifteen hundred dollars, and the said Matthew Brooks was entitled to a judgment obtained by Jesse Lester against the estate of said Armstrong; they agreed to divide whatever might he…

The complainant obtained a judgment at law against the defendant,/upon which an execution issued and was returned “not satisfied.” He then filed this bill to subject the stock whiclf the defendant had in the Nashville Bridge Company to the payment and satisfaction of his judgment. The Bridge Company was incorporated by act of assembly.

This is a bill of review. The original bill was filed on the 18th November, 1828.

The complainants filed this bill to redeem a certain lot of ground, particularly described and mentioned in the pleadings. The lot was sold by virtue of an execution issued upon a judgment rendered against the complainants, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Tennessee.

This is a suit on an administration bond, commenced in the county court of Davidson, against Thomas Patterson as administrator de bonis non of James P. Downs, deceased, and John Bosley and Caleb M’Graw as sureties in said bond. The cause was adjourned by consent to the circuit court. The declaration sets out the bond and condition, and alleges a breach in the failure of Patterson to pay over to the person entitled.

Thomas Patterson was appointed the guardian of William Downs by the county court of Davidson county, fie executed a bond for the faithful discharge of his duties as guardian, upon the 2Sth January, IS20. William Maxey and James Carter also executed this bond as his securities. Sometime in the year 1822, Patterson was removed as guardian of Downs, and Duncan Robertson appointed in his place.

This was an action of trespassand false imprisonment, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff. The defendant below pleaded, that they were slaves for life. Held: “ If the construction of a deed of emancipation be doubtful, resort may be had to the rule, that the deed is to be taken most stronSly against the grantor, and he construed ,. , ..

John Laird recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Giles county, against Lewis H. Brown, Thomas B. Haynie, Baker P. Potts and Dorothy Camp, executrix of John H. Camp, deceased, at the-term, 1831, for seven hundred and twenty-two dollars.

Ejectment from the circuit court of Williamson county. This cause presented several questions which were argued at the bar, but as the opinion of the court is based only upon one of the points argued, a statement of the facts in relation to that is only deemed necessary. The plaintiff in deraigning his title, offered in evidence a deed from Moses Curtis to Thomas Staggs, dated 9th June, 1827.

Davis, the plaintiff in error, rented a piece of land to -Howard, on which the latter raised a small quantity of cotton. He sold twelve hundred and thirty six pounds of the cotton in the seed to Parks and Campbell, at the rate of one dollar and fifty cents per hundred pounds, for which they paid him in cash and merchandise. Parks and Campbell, at the time they purchased the cotton, had no knowledge, (at least none was proved,) that the cotton was raised upon rented premises.

This was an action of ejectment tried in the circuit court of Wilson county. The plaintiff read in evidence a grant to Philip Shaclder, from the State of North Carolina, for the land in controversy.

This was an action of debt brought upon a guardian bond, the condition of which was-as follows: “The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas the above bounden Joseph Sharp is constituted and appointed guardian of James M. Quarles, a minor orphan: Now, if the said Joseph Sharp shall faithfully execute his guardianship, by securing and improving all the estate of the said James M. Quarles that shall come into his possession, for the benefit of the said James M.…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the value or proceeds of some cotton sold by a man by the name of Hancock, to Ballantine and Kercheval, the plaintiffs in error. The facts were these: Hancock rented from the ancestor of the defendants in error, a piece of land, and was to pay two dollars per acre for the part in cultivation, amounting to about twenty-five acres. . Upon this land he raised some cotton and corn.

The defendant in error brought an action of covenant against Stephen Gr. Eubanks, in the county court of Williamson.

This is a petition filed in the county court of Montgomery. The petition states, that Gully Moore, dec’d. executed a paper purporting to be his will; that the same is invalid, “because at the date of said supposed will, and for a long time before and after, and up to his death, the said Gully Moore had not a disposing mind.” Issue was regularly taken upon the petition.

This is an ejectment brought in the circuit court of Montgomery, against the defendant, on the 29th of December, 1829. The facts are as follows: The lessor of the plaintiff introduced and read a grant from North Carolina, for one thousand acres of land, to Philip Whitsett; he also read a deed from Simpson Harris to the plaintiff, for two hundred and fifty acres, dated 25th August, 1803.

This is an action of assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use.

Appeal in the nature of a writ of error from Montgomery circuit court. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice. The cause was argued by

This was an action on the case to recover the value of a lot of cotton shipped on hoard the defendant’s boat, which was lost.

George Bell, in his lifetime, recovered against Mont* gomery Bell, and his securities in appeal to the supreme Court, a judgment for several thousand dollars. After the recovery'of said judgment, and before the same was fully paid 'off, George Bell departed this life intestate, leaving as his next of kin, the legatees of Margaret Tait.

On tbe 24th of December, 1839, Thomas Crutcher, Treasurer of Middle Tennessee, produced to the circuit court of Davidson county, the official bond of Lewis H.. Brown, sheriff and collector of Giles -county, and petitioned the court for a judgment against said Brown and his securities for the amount of taxes which had been collected and remained unpaid by said Brown.

In this case the notice was given to the plaintiff in error, and his securities in a prison-bounds bond, that a motion would be made against them on the third Monday of the January term, 1832, of the Davidson county court. No motion was made on that day or at that term; but at the April term following, a motion was made and judgment rendered. It is not shown in the record that the plaintiff in error ever appeared by himself or counsel.

This was an action of debt brought upon two notes. Entries appear to have been made in these words: “1st, plea, payment; 2d, set off.” Then follows a plea in abatement, alleging that there is no such person as the plaintiff in being. To this plea there is a special demurrer. One of the causes assigned is, that the truth of and the plea is not verified by affidavit in legal form.

H. Langtree recovered a judgment against J. M’Intosh before a justice of the peace for Maury county, for fifty dollars.

In this case, upon the trial in the circuit court of Montgomery county, the plaintiff offered to read in evidence a bill of lading, which the court rejected. The plaintiff then voluntarily suffered a nonsuit. He afterwards moved the court to set aside the nonsuit, which the court refused to do. Prom the judgment of the court refusing to reinstate the cause, the plaintiff appealed in error to ,. this court-

Reuben Grady sued Thomas Sharron in the Davidson circuit court in trover, for having seized and sold a keel boat which had been mortgaged to him, Grady, by Thomas Gilbert. Plea, not guilty. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered to read in evidence to the jury the deed of mortgage which had been given to him by Gilbert, by which said boat was mortgaged to him, which bears date the 27th August, 1831.

This was a suit upon a bond for three thousand dollars; the condition, if there was ary, is not set out either in the declaration or in the pleas. The declaration alleges, “that on the 23d June, 1828, by their writing obligatory, sealed with their seals, the defendants bound themselves to pay the plaintiff three thousand dollars,” &c. The pleas are, set off and payment.

This was an action of debt brought by Crockett, as endorsee of a negotiable note executed by the defendant. The note was unsealed, and the only question for the court to determine was, whether an action of debt could be maintained by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker.

This was an action of assumpsit. The writ and declaration laid the damages at eight thousand dollars, the verdict and judgment were for eight thousand four hundred dollars. No remittitur was entered in the court below. The defendant appealed in error to this court. The only error in this case is, that the damages assessed by the jury, and the judgment is for more than the damages laid in the writ and declaration.

This is an action for waste, prosecuted by the plaintiff, who is entitled to the reversion of part of the dower estate of the defendant. The declaration alleges, that the waste was committed by removing the timber from fifteen acres of the dower estate. The proof shows' that Henry Hyde died intestate, seized and possessed of seven hundred and fifty-six acres of land, leaving his widow (the defendant) and eight children.

In 1802, Elizabeth Stokes was about to intermarry with Amos Johnston, in the county of Onslow, North Carolina.

The plaintiff in error, John Fergus, was indicted in the circuit court of Rutherford county, and tried upon the following indictment: “The grand jurors for the State of Tennessee, duly elected, empannelled, sworn, and charged to enquire for the body of the county of Rutherford aforesaid, upon their oath present, that John Fergus, late of said county, yeoman, on the nineteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, with force and…

The record in this case shows, that the following scire facias was issued by the clerk of Giles circuit court, to wit: “State of Tennessee, To the sheriff of Giles county, greeting: Whereas, heretofore, to wit, at a circuit court began ano heid in and for the county of Giles, in said State, at the court house in the town of Pulaski, on Monday the 3d day of August, 1829, and during said term, on the 11th day of said month, the grand jurors for the State aforesaid, returned…

The defendant was indicted in the Montgomery county court for an assault and battery. He pleaded not guilty; upon which an issue was found. On the trial of the issue in the county court, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. From this finding of the jury, William K. Turner, Esq. the attorney general for that district,' prayed an appeal on behalf of the State to the circuit court of Montgomery county, which was granted.

The grand jurors in the circuit court of Bedford county found the following indictment against the plaintiff in error: “The grand jurors for the State of Tennessee, elected, empannelled, sworn and charged to enquire for the body of the county aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, present, that Dabney Ewell, late of the county aforesaid, physician, on the first day of October, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty-one, with force and arms, in the county…

The plaintiff in error was indicted in the circuit court, for making, forging and offering to pass a certain forged and fraudulent paper writing, contrary to the provision of the penal code of 1829. The indictment contained five counts, to all of which the defendant pleaded not guilty. Upon the trial, the jury acquitted him upon the first, second and fourth counts in the indictment, and found him guilty in manner and form as charged in the third and fifth counts.

This is a bill filed for an injunction in the chancery court. The complainant, who is solvent, purchased four hundred acres of land from the defendant, Cook, for which he agreed to pay one thousand dollars in one, two and three years. He received Cook’s bond for a title, and executed his three notes to Cook for three hundred and thirty-three dollars thirty-three and a third cents each.

This was a bill filed, praying an injunction and super-sedeas to an execution founded on a decree obtained by the defendant Newby against complainant Brown, and that the decree rendered in this cause be revised, reviewed and corrected. The decree originally made in this cause, and called in question by the present bill, was made in the Smith county circuit court, at a special term, commencing the 5th day of September, 1858.

On the 9th of May, 1829, complainants borrowed of defendant Childress, for the use of Coleman, five hundred and fifty dollars, upon an agreement to pay defendant two hundred and fifty dollars besides lawful interest, making two hundred and eighty-three dollars for the use of the sum borrowed for one year.

On a former hearing of this cause in this court, an issue in chancery was ordered to be sent down to the circuit court to be submitted to a jury. They passed upon it, and the cireuit court gave judgment that the plaintiff recover the damages assessed, instead of certifying the finding into chancery as ordered.

The bill was filed in this cause in the chancery court at Jackson, on the 9th September, 1831. Subpoenas to answer issued from March term, 1831, to the sheriff of Madison county, returnable to September term, 1831. The sheriff returned on these subpoenas that the defendants were not found. At the same time, affidavit being made of the non-residence in this State of all the defendants, except David W. Cook and wife, an order of publication was made.

In the year 1785, General Abner Nash employed General James Robertson to locate twenty-five land warrants of one thousand acres each, in the western district of Tennessee. The lands were located in 1785, grants issued in 1788. The lands were granted at the expense of James and Elijah Robertson for which said James was to have one third. General Nash died in 1786, having devised his lands to his son, Abner Nash, and his daughter, Margaret Hoslin, in equal moieties.

This is an action of debt brought m the circuit court or Hardeman county against the pJamtirl m error, upon the record of a decree of the chancery court at Lynch-burg, Virginia. The declaration is in the debit and deti-net. The pleas are nul tiel record and payment.

The plaintiff sued-the defendants in an action of as-sumpsit on the following instrument, viz: “Covington, April 14th, 1829. Know all men by these presents, that we are held and firmly bound unto James H. Clark in the sum of four thousand six hundred and fifty dollars, to the which payment we bind ourselves, our heirs and assigns.

This is an appeal in error from the judgment of the Shelby circuit court, upon an issue of devisavit vel non, made up to try the validity of a paper purporting to be the last will of B. Suggett. The proof was by one witness, that at the request of the deceased he wrote the will and signed the name of the deceased thereto; that the deceased dictated the will and affixed his mark, and that he was of sound- mind.

This was a suit brought before three justices of the peace for a forcible detainer. The proceedings were all in accordance with the acts of assembly. The jury called by the justices of the peace upon the hearing before them found, that the premises were forcibly detained, and restitution was awarded to the plaintiff Trousdale. Darnell, the defendant, took the case to the circuit court by certio-rari, where the cause was re-tried before a jury.

Brown, the plaintiff in error, recovered a judgment against Newton. Newton filed his petition for a cer-tiorari^ which was sworn to before the clerk of the circuit court out of term time.

Willie Kimbrough and Buckley Kimbrough, each had an occupant claim in the eleventh district, regularly proved, surveyed and entered on the surveyor’s books and general plan, by virtue of the occupant law of 1826. These claims were assigned to John Douglass. On ° ° the first of January, 1833, Dubart L. Bourland offered an entry to the surveyor for two hundred and twenty-eight acres, part of the land within the occupant surveys. The surveyor refused to receive it.

By virtue of the act of 1832, Kimble, as an occupant, was entitled to a preference of entry of his occupant claim. On the 2Sth of June, 1833, he tendered to the surveyor general proof of occupancy, a survey, warrant, and location, which the surveyor refused to receive, because he had previously received a location and warrant, and had entered the land for the benefit of Tobias Gibson and Josiah Baugh, on the 2d day of February, 1S33, which entry he would not vacate.

In 1827, Akers entered an occupant claim with the surveyor of the twelfth district, and occupied the land occasionally until August, 1831, when Pettyjohn entered upon it, claiming title to an old cabin situated thereon, through one King, who had built the cabin. Pettyjohn, whilst Akers was from home, entered the cabin with his family, at the end of which Akers had a camp, together with a cotton patch on the premises.

This is a case agreed, transferred from the Madison circuit court to this court. Frazer and Evans resided on adjoining tracts of granted land. Evans’ tract contained eighty-four acres, andFrazer’s fifty-three acres. Adjoining them lay a piece of vacant land of ninety acres, and they both claimed a preference of entry by virtue of the occupant law of 1827; Evans for the whole, and Frazer for forty-six and three-fourth acres.

In this case a fieri facias was put into the hands of Marshall, the sheriff of Henderson county, on the 22d September, 1831, against William Harmon and others, which issued from Henderson county court, for seven-hundred and eleven dollars thirty-six cents, besides interest and costs, in favor of the plaintiffs, which execution he refused to collect or return as required by law.

This is an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff in error, as guardian of Emma and Joseph-Britt, for money had and received. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. The proof in the cause, upon the trial in the court below, was, that Johnson Britt had died, leaving his four children, and Emma and Joseph Britt, his two grand children, who were the children of Allen Britt, the son of said Johnson, his heirs at law.

The plaintiff below declared in debt without making profert of the note sued upon; and in declaring he does not show the time when the note fell due. The defendant craved oyer of the note sued upon, which he had, and sets it out, by which it appears said note was due one day after date. Defendant then demurred specially, because there was no profert, and because there is no time stated in the declaration when the note fell due.

This is an action of ejectment against Cravins, the tenant in possession. The only return upon the writ is, “executed on the 26th March, 1832.” No endorsement is made by the sheriff on the copy of the declaration, which is filed, nor is it shown by any.endorsement on the writ that the declaration in ejectment was served.

John Bryan, the lessor of the plaintiff below, is the grantee of six hundred and forty acres of land in Madison county. . He obtained a judgment in the State of North Carolina against one Winford, in 1817, before a justice of the peace for thirty-five dollars, execution issued thereon, and was returned no property found. Win-Word moved to Madison county, Tennessee.

The record shows that the attachment taken out in this caséis against Benjamin F. West, a citizen of the State of Louisiana. The defendant, Lea, was summoned as garnishee, and confessed that he was indebted to West about thirty-five hundred dollars; he filed a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court in this case, setting out that the mercantile firm of Webb & Co. was located in Alabama, and that West was a citizen of Louisiana.

The plaintiff in error, Covington, issued his writ in assumpsit for ninety dollars, for which sum he declared. Upon the trial in the court below he recovered less than fifty dollars. The circuit court on motion arrested the judgment. The plaintiff prayed an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to the supreme court, which was granted; he entered into bond as required by law.

This was a suit instituted before a justice of the peace on a covenant contained in a mortgage deed. To the covenant sued on before the justice, Couger, the debtor, and plaintiff in error here, Thomas Lancaster, the creditor and defendant in error here, and Samuel Lancaster, the trustee in said mortgage, are parties, the three having executed the mortgage deed.

This was an action of covenant brought upon the following instrument: “Know all men by these presents, that we, A. B. Bradford and J. E. Jordan, trustees of Winifred H. Wilson, wife of Samuel Wilson, of, &c. for and in consideration of the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars, to us in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have this day bargained, sold, &c. and by these presents do bargain, sell, &c. unto John Trice, a certain negro woman named Molly, aged…

In this case Bourland was summoned as garnishee, to appear before E. D. Dickson, a justice of the peace for Weakly county, by virtue of an execution issued by said Dickson, founded on a judgment rendered by W. J. Der-ritt a justice of the peace for Henry county, and certified by the clerk of the county court. . Nothing but the judgment against Thomas was produced.

The plaintiff in error- sued Jones in an action for money had and received, and on the trial in the circuit court before the jury, it appeared that Dickins, the plaintiff in error, had paid to defendant in error, who was sheriff and collector of Payette county, large sums of money for assessed taxes, for the years 1829 and 1830, as by the tax list in said defendant’s hands. Said assessed tax was unconstitutional, as was declared in the supreme court.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff, who was overseer of a road, against the defendant, for the penalty for failing to work on said road when he was notified to do so. Wilson was appointed overseer of the road by an order of Madison county court made at the November term, 1831, in which order two justices were directed to give him a list of the hands, but this proof was rejected by the court.

- The plainliff in error appointed William M. Holliday his attorney in fact, to transact all his business in Henry county, in' this State, without any limitation or restriction upon the powers of his said attorney. Holliday, as at- • torney as aforesaid, held a note executed by George B. Wharton to the plaintiff, which he assigned to George W. Terrill, and which in the course of trade came into the hands of defendant in error, who collected the money from Wharton.

In this case judgment had been rendered in the county court, from which the plaintiff prosecuted an appeal in error to the circuit court, and while the cause was pending there, the parties came into court, and by their agreement and consent, it was ordered by the court that the cause be transferred to this court.” There was no agreed statement of the facts in the record. The defendant in error moved to strike the cause from the docket.

This is an action of covenant, brought upon a covenant made by Ward to deliver to Moore, on the 10th day of November, 1832, or to his order, a two horse wagon. The covenant states the kind of wagon particularly. The breach assigned is the non-delivery of the wagon as covenanted to be done. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff below did not give him ten days notice to deliver the wagon at any place, according to the requisitions of the statute.

In this case the counsel for the plaintiffs below moved at the trial, after the evidence had been closed, to strike from the writ and declaration the name of Theresa M. King, one of the plaintiffs, because he had discovered that she had no interest in the suit, which the court permitted to be done, to which the defendant excepted, and on account of which this appeal in error is prosecuted.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the lessors of plaintiff in error against the defendant in error. On the trial below, the lessors of the plaintiff read a grant for twenty-five hundred acres of land, to David Flowers, dated in 1789, and claimed title as the heirs of the grantee. To fix their identity it was first attempted to be proved, that David Flowers died leaving no issue. That Thomas Flowers died without issue.

The corporation of Memphis laid off part of the promenade in front of the town, on the Mississippi river, for a steamboat landing; and other parts for a landing for flat boats and other craft.

This is a suit brought by the plaintiff below against the defendant, in whose hands the plaintiffs had put a note for collection, for which note defendant gave the following receipt: “Received of Lee and Grove, for collection, one note on J. H. Chandland for forty-five dollars, due 1st of November, 1832, which I promise to collect or return according to law.

This was an action of trespass on the case brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error.

Randle and Tyrrell were the joint owners of -a horse; an execution in favor of the plaintiffs below came into the hands of the sheriff against the goods and chattels of Tyrrell. The horse was in the possession of Randle. The sheriff made a levy upon him as the property of Tyr-rell, but did not take the horse in possession, Randle refusing to give him up, or to give a bond for his delivery on the day of sale.

Smith was arrested, and a prison bounds bond taken to J. H. King, jailer of Henry county, to which Woodruff was security. Smith broke the bounds, and Woodruff was moved against in the county court, and judgment had against him. The plaintiff in error insists that the judgment should be reversed, because, 1st. The bond is not taken in pursuance of the act of 1741, ch. 18, sec. 3, and 1821, ch. 28, sec. 1, and 1759, ch. 14, sec. 2.

Thomas Hearne covenanted with Mark R. Roberts to occupy the lands of Patsey Roberts, and leave the fences and improvements in good tenantable repair at the expi-. ration of the lease. Patsey Roberts intermarried with John Porter, who, with his wife, sold and conveyed the land to John Shelby.

This was an appeal from a justice of the peace to the circuit court of Carroll county. The defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error upon a note under seal for twenty dollars, payable in cattle, before a justice of the peace., and recovered a judgment.

The plaintiff below in deraigning his title, after reading a grant from the State of Tennessee to Jenkin White-side for the land in controversy, produced a record of the proceedings and judgment in the case of Lawrence Brown vs. Jenkin Whitesides’ administrator and others. He also produced the record of a judgment founded upon a scire facias against the heirs of Jenkin Whitesides.

Judgment having been rendered against Crook at the suit of Buford, before a justice of-the peace, for a sum under fifty dollars, a ca. sa. issued, addressed to any lawful'officer, commanding that he take the body of said Crook, and him forthwith deliver to the jailer of said county, and that the jailer receive and commit him to.jail, safely keeping him until he satisfy Robert Buford the sum of thirty-two dollars seventy-five cents, with costs, &c. which was signed by the…

The plaintiff in error was indicted at the July term of Madison circuit court, with six others. The indictment contained five counts; 1st, for a riot at common law; 2d, riot and assault upon James Kincaid, the prosecutor; 3d, riot and assault upon the body of Elizabeth Kincaid; 5th, for riotously and violently, &c. breaking open a smoke house, or out house door, and taking therefrom the ne-groes of the prosecutor.

The indictment in this case charges the defendant with committing perjury “in the issue of traverse joined between the State of Tennessee and Matthew P. Dunn, tried in the county court of Weakley county, for an assault and battery.” The indictment does not charge that the issue of traverse joined between the State and Dunn, touching which the defendant gave evidence, was by indictment or presentment. The defendant pleaded not guilty, upon which issue was taken.

The defendant in this case was indicted for maliciously stabbing. Upon the trial, the jury found the defendant “not guilty of the malicious stabbing, but guilty of an assault and battery.” The court discharged the defendant, refusing to pronounce judgment on said verdict. Prom which decision of the judge the Attorney General for the State prosecutes this writ of error.