Volume 16 — Florida Reports

Statement of the Case. The relator, on the 13th day of December, 1876, filed a petition praying that a writ of mandamus should issue… Held: and continued said canvass until the said Board had canvassed and passed upon returns from all the counties in said State, and did ascertain from such canvass of the returns from all the counties in said State the true vote cast at said election for each and every of the persons voted for at said election, and did declare the result…

Writ of error to Circuit Court for Alachua county. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the facts of the case.

This is an action brought under the Code of Procedure by the plaintiffs, who had formerly been partners, to recover upon an open account for goods sold and delivered, and for money advanced for and loaned, while such partners, to the defendant.

Johns county. This is an action brought under the Code of Procedure. Held: that as the complaint was defective and demurrers reached back to it, it must be amended. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint alleging— 1. That the defendant, Frances Snow, is a married woman, and the wife of the defendant, Henry M. Snow. 2.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia county.</p> <p>Sherman was complainant in the cause. The facts of the - case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

The complainants, Dunning & Palmer and F. S. Selover •& Co., filed, August 15, 1874, a hill in chancery against Sophia R. Carr, John' T. Carr and James W. Allen, then lately partners doing business in St. Johns county, under the firm name of B. E. Carr & Co., and James Burt, trustee, George Burt and Caleb W. Loring in behalf of themselves and other creditors of B. E. Carr & Co. The bill alleges that Dunning & Palmer on June 6th, A. D., 1873, recovered a judgment against the…

<p>This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Duval County, in a habeas corpus proceeding discharging the appellee from arrest made by the applicant as Marshal of the city of Jacksonville, upon a warrant issued by the Mayor of that city upon a charge of a violation by the appellee of an ordinance of the city.</p> <p>The opinion of the court states all the facts involved in the points decided.</p>

This is a proceeding under the unlawful detainer statute brought by the appellants in the Circuit Court of Gadsden county against the respondent.

<p>Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Leon county.</p> <p>The facts of the ease are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

The plaintiff in error moved for a rule against the Clerk. of the Supreme Court to compel him to docket the case. A rule for the Clerk to show cause was granted, and he answered the same, setting up the 21st Eule of Practice in the Supreme Court, and that the plaintiff in error had not complied with the requirements of the same, either by giving bond or recognizance, or making the deposit, which the-Clerk is thereby authorized to exact before docketing a case,

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Downie, the appellee, recovered judgment against the county of Nassau for §655.JO, and the county appealed. The other facts necessary to the full understanding of the opinion of the Court are stated in it.

This is a suit upon the bond of W. R. Pettes, late Collector of Revenue for the county of Leon, against the principal and sureties.

<p>Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of theeourt.</p>

This is an action of ejectment brought by Sedgwick against Dawkins to spring term, A. D. 1870, of the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Duval county. At that term there was trial and verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant, within four days after the verdict, entered a motion in arrest of judgment, which the court continued. Ho supersedeas was ordered by the court.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the- opinion of the-court.</p>

This case was commenced iri the Circuit Court for Calhoun .county, prior to the adoption of the Code, and transferred, by consent, to Jackson county. Jeremiah Tate died pending the suit, and it was revived by his administrator, Sea- . born Tate. The final decree was rendered subsequent to .the adoption of the Code. The other facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the ■court.

<p>A court of equity will not entertain a bill for an injunction against a tax-collector who threatens to sieze personal property without lawful authority, as such seizure would be a mere trespass remediable in a court of law.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

The appellant was complainant in the Circuit Court, Billings and James E. Meddaugh being' defendants. The other facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia county.</p> <p>■ C. L. LeBaron & Son w’ere the insolvent debtors mentioned in the opinion. They made an assignment of their •effects to the complainants, B. F. Simmons, et als. The other facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>I. Where it appears that a committing magistrate, on complaint that the accused had threatened to do damage-to a schooner, and also to do bodily harm to the complainant, issued a warrant of commitment to the jail for want of sureties against doing- damage to the property and to keep the peace toward the complainant; held, that this was erronc- ‘ ous. Sureties of the peace against doing damage to properly (except as to threats to burn a dwelling-house) are not authorized by the common law or by statute, and imprisonment'for want of such sureties is not allowed by law.</p> <p>3. The commitment having been made for want of bail for an act no* criminal, and also for a criminal act, is irregular. The security should be fixed according to the degree of the_criminal act charged, and the court on habeas corpus should, if required by the accused, hear and examine into the evidence for the purpose of determining what criminal act has been committed, and the probable cause shown against the accused, and this, whether the 'warrant of commitment was regular or irregular.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the •court.</p>

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Jefferson county. The plaintiff in error was convictecLof larceny at the regular spring term of the Circuit Court for Jefferson county, held in March, 1877.

The relator filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus January 15, 1878, and the court ordered that the -writ issue in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The alternative writ issued, and .the facts stated in the petition being admitted as true, and the question of the jurisdiction of the court to control the judgment of the Comptroller in the premises being waived, the case was submitted to the court for a construction of the statute involved.

The information in the nature of a quo warranto in this ease was filed at the June term, A. D. 1876, the Hon. Win. Archer Cocke being then Attorney-General, and Messrs. Jones and Mallory appearing for the relator. The respondent, Jones, filed both a general demurrer and a plea on the fifth day of August, 1876. The court disposed of the demurrer at the June term, 1877. The other facts necessary to a full understanding of the opinion on the demurrer are stated in the opinion.

Duval county. The appellee recovered a judgment against appellant for $819.07 and costs, in an action of assumpsit upon an open account. -The appellant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence and the law of the case, and on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The court overruled the motion. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The appellee recovered judgment in an action upon the case for $275, damages and costs, on the ground stated in ■the opinion .of the court. The other facts necessary to an understanding of the case are stated 'in the opinion of the court.

<p>Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Escambia county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Willard recovered a judgment against Bucky for seventy-three dollars before a justice of the peace of Duval county, and filed a transcript thereof in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of that county, and the judgment was entered in the docket of circuit court judgments, and the clerk then issued an execution under which the sheriff was about to proceed, when defendant made his affidavit that the execution was issued illegally, because no legal execution could…

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the «court.</p>

This case was commenced prior to' the adoption of the Code, but the judgment was rendered subsequent thereto. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an action upon a promissory note dated in March, 1862, payable in twelve months, for $1,409.40 and interest.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This is an action brought under the Code by respondent against the appellant. The case was tried in the Circuit Court at Fall Term, A. D. 1875, while the Hon. W. W. YanEess was Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, embracing Jackson county. There was a verdict for the respondent. The appellant, McEealy, moved for a new trial. Judge YanEess held this motion under advisement, and on the 28th day of March, 1877, filed an order denying it.

This was an action brought under the Code by the respondent against the appellant, McNealy, and another. The respondent recovered judgment in the Circuit Court against the appellant for the sum of $980.90 and costs, and from this judgment the appellant appealed. The other facts necessary to an understanding of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Circuit Court for Jackson county. . This is an action under the Code.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Escambia county. (This case would have been placed among the other common law cases decided at this term, but it could not be from the Eeporter’s inability to procure the briefs of counsel in time.) The declaration alleges that the defendant, on and before the first day of April, 1874, was a stockholder in the Pensacola Lumber Company, a corporation formed in the State of New York,under the provisions of the act of the Legislature of…

The statement which follows was made by the Justice who delivered the opinion. This is an appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit for Duval county. John O. Matthews brought his bill against William F. Porter, alleging that in 1869 he effected a loan of nineteen hundred and forty-four ($1944) dollars from Porter for the purpose of paying for a tract of land in Marion county, which had been purchased by him of Charles 0.

The appellee, Wittich, filed his bill alleging that here-covered a judgment against Loring, and had execution thereon in the hands of the sheriff, (Hutchinson); that the sheriff levied on the interest of Loring in a certain schooner; that Loring then made and delivered to the sheriff an affidavit in which he claims to be the head of a family and a resident and citizen of this State; and that an inventory contained therein was a true and perfect list of all his personal…

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. Pending the consummation of a sale of land an injunction restraining it was served on the parties, at the suit of a third person ; afterwards, by an arrangement by stipulation of the parties, including the plaintiff in the injunction suit, a conveyance of the land was made and the consideration secured by notes and mortgage payable at a day certain, one note without interest and others with interest, which notes and mortgage were deposited with a party in trust, subject to the determination and decree of the court in the injunction suit: Held, That the injunction was waived and did not attach to the notes and mortgage, and did not relieve the maker of the notes from the payment of. interest thereon after maturity, and he was not restrained by the injunction, or by the arrangement, from paying or tendering the money to the holder when due, according to the legal effect of his-promise.</p> <p>2. A tender of a sum less than the amount due upon the note is of no avail.</p>

. Appeal from the Circuit Ccurt for Gadsden county. The appellant, William EL Gibson, filed his bill in equity against the appellees, William Mitchell and Sarah Y., his wife, Thomas Mitchell and Frances C., his wife, William A. Scott, a minor, and Thomas Mitchell as guardian for said minor, Sarah J. Hutchinson, feme sole, and Benjamin F. Watson.

Johns county. The bill alleges the organization of the company in pursuance of the provisions of its charter, the location of its road within the limits prescribed therein; that the company caused maps, plats, and diagrams to be made showing the line of said road, the connections, distances of township, range, or section lines, as required by the seventh section of said act, and designating the odd sections in fractional sections within six miles on either side of the road,…

<p>T. This court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from a judgment rendered by a Circuit Court in an action brought under the statute in relation to the maintenance of bastard children.</p> <p>2.. The court will not reverse the finding of a. jury upon a question of fset, .unless the. verdict is so. clearly and .manifestly against the weight of evidence as to suggest the presumption that it was produced by influences other than a proper consideration of the testimony.</p> <p>;3. The court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, has a right to excuse a juror, although he may be found competent to serve; and such an exercise of discretion is no error, although objected to by the parties to the action.</p> <p>i. Am. exception to a portion of the charge of the court to the jury, to be available as error on review, must be to a separate, particular and specific portion of such charge. The language used by the court should be designated; a general exception fails if any part of such charge is correct.</p> <p>5. The form of the judgment ordered by the court in such cases should be in strict compliance with the directions of the statute.</p> <p>>6. In an action of bastardy the mother has an interest in the result which may be taken into consideration by the jury in considering her credibility as a witness, and the court should have so instructed the jury when requested so to do by the defendant’s counsei.</p>

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Orange county. There is a sufficient statement of the facts in the opinion of the court.

Alfred Hunter filed a petition praying a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the sheriff of Leon county. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Congress of the United States, by an act approved July -2, 1862, granted to the several States an amount of public lands, to.be apportioned to each State, equal to thirty thousand acres for each Senator and Representativo; or, -where there .were no lands within the State subject to sale at private entry, land scrip for the amount in acres; the moneys derived from the sale of this land or scrip to be invested and to constitute a perpetual fund, the principal to remain…

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Escambia county. The defendant in error, Wittich, who was plaintiff in the court below, claimed to have sold goods amounting to $1,761.35 to the schooner William Fisher, of which John Loring and others were owners, and Loring was master.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Escambia county. The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff in the Circuit Court, sued the defendant in error in an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained several counts, but a non-suit having been taken as to all but the first count, this count alone and the pleadings and proceedings relating to it constitute the case before this court.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Eosa county.</p> <p>There is a sufficient statement of the facts in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa county.' There is a sufficient statement of the facts in the opinion of the court.</p>

John T. Daniels, the plaintiff, brought his action in Santa Rosa Circuit Court against Richard M. Bushnell, James Creary,. E. EL.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson couDty.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson county.</p> <p>The facts of the ease are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from tlie Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This is an action under the Code. Duval county, in which this'cause was brought.in the Circuit Court, is in the Fourth Judicial Circuit. The judgment of April 2, 1874, for $661,845.55, mentioned in the opinion, is in favor of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of Florida for the balance of purchase money of what were March 20, 1869, the Pensacola and Georgia Eailroad and Tallahassee Eailroad.

The bill of complaint alleges that Hawkins, the defendant, received into his own hand and possession nearly all the-assets of the estate, consisting of moneys and bonds, and has continued to- hold and control the same, and to make-investments with said money without permitting Bellamy/ and the other executors to participate therein, and without' consulting him ; that Hawkins has used Bellamy’s name as co-executor when necessary, and procured Bellamy’s signature to receipts…

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison county.</p> <p>The written assignment by U. M. Robert to his wife, Rachel C. Robert, was endorsed on the mortgage,, and after reciting the receipt of moneys and “ other valuable considerations,” is as follows : “ I have assigned, transferred, and set over the within mortgage and land to the said Rachel C. Robert, to her heirs and assigns, hereby transferring all my interest and estate mentioned therein to her heirs and assigns.” It was executed May 11, 1870, is witnessed by two witnesses, and recorded May 17, 1870, being acknowledged before the clerk by U. M. Robert for record.</p> <p>The defence set up, involving the Guilmartin & Co., claim mentioned in the opinion, is to the effect that W. M. Tunno, the son of the complainant, E. M. Tunno, endorsed for U. M. Robert to enable him to obtain supplies from Guilmartin & Co. to run their farm for the year 1871, and that Robert obtained a large amount of supplies from G. & Co., but did not pay for them, but left a balance of $738.18 and interest unpaid, which amount “ has been duly paid, or secured to be paid, to said G. & Co.” That such endorsement was made in pursuance of an original understanding that it should be recognized as a legitimate set-off' or demand against any claim U. M. Robert might have on said mortgage obligation, and that said balance of $738.18 is an equitable set-off against the claim. A member of the firm of G. & Co. testified that W. M. Tunno introduced Mr. U. M. Robert, and the advances were made upon Mr. T.’s guaranteeing their payment, and Tunno has paid $350 on the indebtedness; that there is a balance due, and they consider Mr. T. liable for it; they did not know what reason moved Mr. T. to become guarantor for Mr. R.; knew nothing about the mortgage, and had no contract in reference to it.</p> <p>Chapter 1983 of the Laws of Florida provides that “ no person offered as a witness in any. court, or before any officer acting judicially, shall be excluded' by reason of his interest in the event of the action or proceeding, or because he is a party thereto: Provided, however, That no party to such action or proceeding, nor any person interested in the event thereof, nor any person from, through, or under whom any such party or interested person desires [derives] any interest or title by assignment or otherwise, shall be examined as a witness in regard to any transaction or communication between such witness and the person at the time of such examination deceased, insane, or lunatic, against the executor, administrator, heir at law, next of kin, assignee, legatee, divisee, or survivor of such deceased person, or the assignee or committee of such insane person or lunatic; but this prohibition shall not extend to any transaction or communication as to which any such- executor, administrator, heir at law, next of kin, assignee, legatee, divisee, survivor, or committeemen shall be examined on his own behalf, or as to which the testimony of such deceased person or lunatie shall be given in evidence.”</p> <p>The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia county.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

The case was transferred from Escambia county on account of the disqualification of the Judge of the First Circuit to hear it.

Johns county. The facts of the ease are stated in the opinion of the court. The record in this case was not furnished the Eeporter in time to enable him to place it among the other common law cases.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. To authorize a witness to testify as to the reputation of another for truth and veracity in order to impeach him, it is not necessary that he should know what a majority of his neighbors or associates say or think of his character for truth.</p> <p>2. If a witness testifies that he knows the reputation for truth and veracity of the party to be impeached where he lives, the questions as to whether that reputation is good or bad, and whether from that reputation he would believe him under oath, are proper.</p> <p>3. 'The opposing party can, upon cross examination, ascertain the extent of the information of the witness, and the sources of his knowledge</p>