Volume 51 — Alabama Reports

From the Circuit Court of Lauderdale. The record in this case having been lost, the reporter cannot state the name of the presiding judge in the court below. Nothing but the opinion has come to his hands.

From: the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. C. F. Moulton. The. indictment in this case, which was found at the February term, 1874, contained two counts: the first charging that the prisoner “ gave a false alarm by the fire-alarm telegraph in the city of Mobile, knowing the same to be such ; ” and the second that he “ caused to be given” such false alarm.

Fbom tbe Circuit Court of Etowab. Tried before tbe Hon. Wm. H. Smith. Tbe prisoner in tbis case, William M. Hall, was indicted for tbe murder of bis wife in August, 1865. Tbe indictment was found at tbe October term, 1865, of tbe circuit court of Cherokee county; and tbe cause was transferred, on tbe defendant’s application, at tbe October term, 1867, to tbe circuit court of Baine county.

From the Circuit Court of Crenshaw. Tried before the Hon. P. O. Harper. No counsel appeared for the prisoners in this court, so far as the docket or the record discloses.

From the Circuit Court of Geneva. Tried before the Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley. The prisoner in this case was indicted for carrying a pistol concealed about his person, and pleaded not guilty to the indictment.

From the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. C. E. Moulton. The prisoner in this case was indicted for an assault on John Wolfe with intent to murder him.

<p> Indictment for Gaming. </p> <p>Card playing at “house or place where spirituous liquors are retailed.” — To authorize a conviction under an indictment for gaming (Rev. Code, § 3620), on proof that the defendant played at a game with cards, by night, in a private bedroom in the second story of a building, it is not sufficient to show that spirituous liquors were retailed in one of the stores below, but a business connection must be shown between the store and the bed-room.</p>

From the Circuit Court of Sumter. Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith.

From the City Court of Eufaula. Tried before the Hon. E. M. Keels. The prisoner in this case was indicted for resisting a constable in the execution of legal process. The indictment was found at the regular December term of the court, 1873.

From the Circuit Court of Hale. Tried before tbe Hon. M. J. Saeeold. cited tbe following cases: 1. As to tbe right of challenge at any time before tbe juror is sworn, Bell Murray v. The State, 48 Ala. 684 ; Hooker v. The State, 4 Ohio, 350 ; State v. Cameron, 2 Chandler, 181; People y- Bodine, 1 Denio, 310 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198; 6 Blackf. 299; 7 lb. 593 ; 8 lb. 194 ; 2 Nevada, 232 ; Spencer v. Be Frank, 3 Iowa, 216 ; 4 Bla.

<p>Fkom the Circuit Court of Lowndes.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Jambs Q. Smith.</p>

The petitioner in this case sued out a writ of habeas corpus, returnable on the first day of May, 1874, before the Hon. E. M. Kexls, judge of the city court of Eufaula, to procure his discharge from custody and confinement by Henry Thornton, “ superintendent of the chain-gang of Barbour county.” On the hearing of the petition, it was shown that the petitioner was held in custody by said Thornton, under two judgments, rendered on the 16th of April, 1874, by E. L. Graves, a…

From the Circuit Court of Sumter. Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith.

Applications by petition, by Dave Driver and Robert Murray, respectively, for writs of mandamus, to the Hon. M. J. Safpold, presiding in the circuit court of Hale county, requiring him to discharge the petitioners from custody, and front further prosecution under indictments pending in said court against them, as stated in the opinion of the court.

Applications by petition, by Scott S. Roundtree and Robert F. Orr, respectively, for writs of prohibition to Hon. James S. Clark, tbe judge of tbe fourth judicial circuit, to restrain him from presiding in tbe “ Law and Equity Court of Morgan county,” or taking or exercising any jurisdiction, as the presiding judge of said court, of a certain cause therein pending against the petitioner Roundtree, or proceeding against the petitioner Orr, who had been summoned as a juror.

<p> Indictment for Peddling without Revenue License. </p> <p>License tax on peddlers ; constitutionality of revenue law imposing, and punishing failure as misdemeanor. — The revenue law of 1868, in its provisions requiring a license for peddling, and punishing the failure to take out a license as a misdemeanor (Sess. Acts 1868, pp. 297, 330, §§ 105, 111), is not obnoxious to any constitutional provision, state or federal; and its validity is not in any manner affected by the subsequent act approved'March 2, 1871,' entitled “An act to authorize manufacturers and makers to peddle the products of their various .making without license.” (Sess. Acts 1870-71, p. 10.)</p>

Petition by John Reeves, for a writ of mandamus to tbe Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley,''presiding in the circuit court of Coffee county, on tbe facts stated in tbe opinion.

<p> Indictment for Obstructing Public Road. </p> <p>1. Obstructing public road; failure to repair public bridge; sufficiency of indictment. — Although a public bridge, across a public road, is a part of the highway, and it is made by statute a misdemeanor to obstruct a public road (Rev. Code, § 1361); yet a failure to keep the bridge in repair, on the part of one whose duty it is to repair it, is not an obstruction of the public road; and if an indictment for obstructing the road shows, on its face, that the alleged obstruction consisted only in the failure to repair the bridge, it is fatally defective.</p> <p>2. Conditional'order granting right to erect mill-dam. — An order of the commissioners' court, granting a person permission to erect a mill-dam across a stream, “ provided he builds and keeps up a good, substantial bridge across the creek, or makes as good a way to cross said creek at the present ford,” if the condition be not a nullity, certainly does not subject a subsequent owner of the land to an indictment for failing to keep the bridge in proper repair.</p>

Application by petition, by James M. Amos, for a writ of mandamus to the Hon. ¥i. H. Smith, the judge of the tenth judicial circuit, to compel the nomination of an attorney, as special judge, to preside on the trial of a certain cause pending in the circuit court of Randolph, in favor of the petitioner, and against one Jenkins Bennett, involving the right to the office of sheriff of said county.

Application by petition, in the name of the State of Alabama, on the relation of A. L. Brooks, the solicitor of Macon county, for a writ of prohibition, or other proper writ or process, to restrain the Hon. L. B. Strange, the judge of the ninth judicial circuit, from proceeding in the hearing and determination of a writ of habeas corpus, sued out before him by one Jim Lowe on behalf of Edward Brown.

The petitioner in this case, Thomas A. Hamilton, claiming that he was elected an alderman for the sixth ward in the city of Mobile, at the election for municipal officers held on the second Monday in December, 1873, and had received the proper certificate of election from the sheriff as returning officer, applied to this court for a writ of prohibition, or other appropriate writ” or process, directed to the Hon. Adam C. Eeldek, chancellor of the southern chancery division,…

The material facts of this case were thus stated in the opinion of the court, as delivered by the chief justice: — “ Peters, C. J. — Robert H. Smith and Peter Hamilton make application to this court, by petition in writing, that the court ‘ will grant unto them the writ of mandamus, directed to the Hon. Adam C. Felder, the chancellor of the southern chancery division of the State of Alabama, the judge presiding at Mobile in the court of chancery for said first district,…

Application by petition in tbe name of tbe State of Alabama, on tbe relation of James P. Stow and others, for a writ of mandamus to Hon. Adam C. Feldee, chancellor of the southern chancery division, presiding at Montgomery, to compel him to reinstate on the docket of the chancery court at Montgomery a certain cause lately pending in said court, which was an information filed in the name of the State, on the relation of James P. Stow and others, citizens and taxpayers of the…

In the matter of the final settlement of the accounts and vouchers of Samuel Foust, as guardian of Lewis Chamblee, deceased, on the application of Ií. A. Gillespie, as administrator of said deceased ward.

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCe.A'w. The bill in this case was filed on the 24th July, 1871, by Jesse Satcher and others, as the heirs-at-law of Herrin M. Satcher, deceased, against James W. Balkum and others; and sought to set aside a sale of certain real estate, which belonged to said Herrin M. Satcher at time of his death, and was sold, under an order of the probate court of said county, on the 7th December, 1863.

Tried before the Hon. Vi. L. Whitlock. This action was brought by William M. Hames, as the administrator with the will annexed of Lawrence Brock, deceased, ag-ainst Isaac Frank; and was commenced on the 24th February, 1871. The defendant pleaded, “in short by consent, the general issue, with leave to give in evidence any matter that might be specially pleaded; ” and the cause was tried on issue joined on that plea.

Tried before tbe Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley. This action was brought by Mrs. Samantha C. Holleman and her children, against N. H. De Nyse, to recover certain town lots in Eufaula; and was commenced on tbe 15th March, 1870.

<p>Appeal from the Chancery Court of St. Clair.</p> <p>Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCbaw.</p>

Tried before the Hon. W. L. Whitlock. De Kalb county, having obtained a judgment for $1,150 against Etowah county, sued out a garnishment on it on the 2d May, 1872, against Samuel Edmondson, as the debtor of said county. At the May term, 1872, a judgment nisi, for want of an answer, was entered against the garnishee; and a motion was made at the same term by the attorneys for Etowab county, to dismiss the garnishment for want of secm’ity for the costs.

Tried before the Hon. L. R. Smith. Motion to dismiss the appeal, on the facts stated in the opinion of the court, which were shown by affidavits for and against the motion.

Tried before the Hon. W. J. Haralson. This action was brought by James I. Donegan and W. B. Tabor, as surviving partners of the late firm of Patton, Donegan & Co., against Bradley, Wilson & Co.; and was founded on the defendants’ indorsement in blank of a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: — “ 16,575.60.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. The appellee in this case, doing business in the city of Montgomery as the agent of the Southern Express Company, was prosecuted before the mayor for failing to take out a license, as required by an ordinance of the city, and was fined fifty dollars, besides costs.

<p> Action on Policy of Insurance against Pire. </p> <p>1. Deposition; swearing witness. — When the certificate of the commissioner states that the witnesses were “ duly sworn,” it will be presumed that they were sworn, as the statute requires (Rev. Code, § 2720), “ to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”</p> <p>2. Same; reducing answers to writing. —A statement in the commissioner’s certificate that the witnesses “ testified as is set down,” shows a substantial compliance with the statutory requisition, that the answers be “ reduced to writing, as near as may be, in the language of the witness,” when the answers themselves appear to be full and unsuspicious.</p> <p>3. Same; certificate including two or more depositions.— Several depositions may be included in one certificate, if it is sufficiently formal; it is not necessary that a separate certificate should be appended to each deposition.</p> <p>4. Same; answer referring to former answer. — In answering a cross-interrogatory, a witness may refer to and adopt his answer to one of the direct interrogatories, if it is also a full answer to the cross-interrogatory.</p> <p>5. Experts. — When a witness is offered as an expert, the question of his competency is addressed to the court; and if it appears, on his preliminary examination, that he has actual knowledge of the stock of goods involved in the issue, and experience in the particular trade or business to which they belong, he should be allowed to state his opinion as to the value of the goods.</p> <p>6. Value of insured stock of goods ; how proved. — In an action on a policy of insurance, to recover the loss on a stock of goods destroyed by fire, a former policy on the same stock, which was shown to the insurance company when the new policy was effected, is competent evidence to prove the value of the goods at that time, and, in connection with proof that the quantity and value of the goods remained about the same up to the time of the fire, to show their value when destroyed.</p> <p>7. Presumption in favor of judgment. — When evidence is admitted by the primary court, which would be competent in connection with other evidence, the appellate court will presume, unless the record repels such presumption, that the necessary connecting proof was adduced.</p> <p>8. Error without injury in allowing question unanswered. — Allowing an improper question to be asked, which is not shown to have been answered, is, at most, error without injury.</p>

Tried before the Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley. This case was before this court at its January term, 1873, when the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded. See the case reported in 49 Ala. 178-82.

3. Same; power to issue negotiable bonds. — A municipal corporation cannot, without a grant of express power, issue negotiable bonds. Appeal from the Chancery Court of Mobile. Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Mrs. Rebecca Davis, against the city of Montgomery, to recover damages for the destruction of her house, which was accidentally burned down, in April, 1870, by sparks and fire communicated frqm a steam-engine used and owned on an adjoining lot by one R. W. Sharp.

Tried before the Hon. John D. Cunningham. This action was brought by Mrs. Frances A. Jones against Edward Blum. The original complaint contained a special count, which was struck out by amendment, and the common count for money had and received; and the cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of the general issue.

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCbaw. The bill in this case was filed on the 24th December, 1870, by N. J. Mitchum, against John C. Hardigree, and sought to enforce a vendor’s lien for the unpaid purchase-money of a tract of land, which was sold by the complainant to the deendant in October, 1867. No deed was executed at the time f the sale, but complainant gave his bond for titles, and the defendant executed his two notes for the purchase-money, each for $250.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed on the 25th June, 1870, by Claiborne Wigglesworth, as the administrator of the estate of Mrs. Margaret Beasley, deceased, against James L. Waugh and wife, as the personal representatives of the estate ‘of John Beasley, deceased, who was the husband of the complainant’s intestate; and sought an account of a legacy bequeáthed to Mrs. Beasley by her father’s will, which her said husband had received.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed by Carshen Peters against Mrs. Eugenie Baptiste, and sought the rescission of a contract for a city lot in Mobile, which had been sold and conveyed to the complainant by said defendant.

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCraw. The bill in this case was filed by M. A. Bell, the appellant, against J. A. Corbitt, as the administrator of the estate of Joseph Lawrence, deceased; and sought to set aside and rescind, on the ground of fraud and mistake, a contract made between the parties in compromise and settlement of a pending suit.

<p>Appeal from tbe City Court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. John D. Cunningham.</p>

Appead from the Circuit Court of Lawrence. Tried before tbe Hon. James S. Clakk.

Tried before tbe Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Mary Charleston against Jesse Ellington, to recover a horse, which was in the defendant’s possession at the commencement of the suit, and which he claimed under an instrument of writing executed by the plaintiff, of which the following is a copy: — “ State of Alabama, Lowndes county.

Appeax from tbe Circuit Court of Washington. Tbe record does not sbow tbe name of tbe presiding judge.

Tried before the Hon. W. L. Whitlock. This action was commenced on the 16th January, 1866, and was founded on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: — “ Oxford Iron Works, April 1th, 1863. “ |1540.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by John Giovanni and Antoni Gully, against the appellee, to recover damages for the illegal sale of certain personal property, alleged to be of less value than f2,000, on which an attachment was levied by the sheriff, at the suit of the said bank, against the appellants as partners, doing business under the firm name of John Giovanni & Company; and which was sold by the sheriff under the attachment, acting under…

Heard before the Hon. B. B. MoCe.A'W. Tbe bill in tbis case was filed on tbe 18th July, 1871, by James H. Fielder and others, citizens of… Held: the council will submit the question of subscription or no subscription to the capital stock of the Montgomery and Eufaula Railroad Company to the voters of Union Springs, at an election to be held on'Monday, the 12th day of April, 1869, upon the following terms, to wit: The amount of subscription shall be $25,000, payable in bonds…

Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith. This action was brought by Robert Crawford, as the administrator of Willis Merriwether, deceased, against John Y. Wright and his wife, Georgia H. Wright; and was founded on a promissory note for six hundred dollars, signed by both of the defendants, and given for the rent of a house and lot in the town of Eutaw during the year 1866, and also on the original consideration for which the note was given.

Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith. This action was brought by the appellants, and was commenced by attachment on the ground of the defendants’ non-residence. The affidavit for the attachment was made by Thos. W. Sims, and stated that the defendants, “ Jacobson & Co.,” were indebted to “Sims, Harrison & Co.;” and the names of the parties were so stated in the attachment and bond, without any designation of 'the partners’ names.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th January, 1870, by P. H. Pepper & Co. as partners, against John H. George, Elijah Reynolds, Edward Bowen, Mrs. C. C. Reynolds, John T. Posey, Mary Carter, and Lehman, Durr & Co.; and sought to foreclose a mortgage on a storehouse and lot in Greenville, which was executed to complainants by said Elijah Reynolds and his wife, Mrs. C. C. Reynolds, to secure an indebtedness then due and owing to…

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed on the 16th March, 1869, by W. V. Beroujon and Clara, his wife, against Louis Monnin, the late guardian of Mrs. Beroujon ; and F. M. Shaw and Louisa, his wife, who was the sister of Mrs. Beroujou, were also joined as defendants.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Gaius Whitfield against Henry A. Woolf and Willis P. King, as the executors of the last will and testament of William King, deceased; was founded on a promissory note for $5,400, executed by said William King and one Richard Jones (who was not sued), dated May 22, 1860, and payable on the 1st June, 1861, to said plaintiff or order; and was commenced on the 4th September, 1866.

The petition for the writ was presented to the probate judge, in vacation; the writ was issued by him, and was duly executed and returned; and on the hearing the following judgment was rendered : “ Probate court, Limestone county, Alabama, August term, 1878. Claiborne Hobbs; ward; petition for habeas corpus.

Wm. S. Mudd, the judge of the third judicial circuit, embracing the county of Tuskaloosa, refusing to grant a mandamus, at the instance of the petitioners and appellants, against W. J. Ryan, tax-assessor of said county. The transcript of the record has been lost. The opinion of the court seems to state all the material facts..

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCraw. The bill in this case was filed on the 11th January, 1872, by the executor of the last will and testament of Hudson Wade, deceased, against Thomas P. Saffold, William O. Saffold, Mrs. Ann Saffold, who was the mother of said William O. Saffold, the wife and children of said William O. Saffold, and the personal representative of Alfred Eubanks, deceased.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of De Kalb.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Wm. L. Whitlock.</p>

Tried before the Hon. John Elliott. In this case, two actions were brought by E. H. Marx against Marx, Frenkel & Co., to recover two months’ rent of a storehouse in the city of Mobile; and were commenced before a justice of the peace. The cases were removed by appeal, by the defendants below, into the circuit court, where, by consent, one case was tried, and the same judgment was rendered in ■ each case.

Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith. This action was brought by Mrs. Susan Hill, as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Charles W. Hill, against A. J. Riddle, J. E. Poelnitz, and F. N. Strudwick; and was founded on the defendants’ promissory note for $1,350, dated the 13th February, 1863, and payable to the plaintiff, as administratrix, on the 1st March, 1864.

Apfeal from the Criminal Court of Butler. Tried before the Hon. W. H. Crenshaw. This action was brought by the appellants, suing as partners, to recover the price of goods sold and delivered by them to the defendants. The complaint contained only the common money counts. The cause was tried on issue joined on the pleas of non assumpsit, payment, and accord and satisfaction.

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCrA'W. The bill in this case was filed on the 12th of September, 1870, by the appellants, claiming as legatees under the last will and testament of John W. Baines, deceased, against Edward B. Young and Wm. H. Thornton, the executors of said will; and sought an account and settlement of the defendants’ trust.

Tried before tbe Hon. M. J. Saeeold. These two cases were argued and submitted together. The actions were both commenced on tbe 9th February, 1871, by ordinary summons and complaint, against J. N. Eskridge and Mrs. M. E. Eskridge, bis wife; and the pleadings in the two cases were tbe same. Tbe original summons was returned “Not found” as to both of tbe defendants, and an alias summons was returned in like manner.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Eelder. This is the case in which an application was made to this court, at its last term, for a writ of prohibition, or other appropriate writ, to restrain further proceedings in the cause, and to vacate and set aside the proceedings already had, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the case made by the bill. See the report of the case, JEx parte Reid, 50 Ala. 439-45.

<p> Trover for Oonversion of Mortgaged Property. </p> <p>1. Mortgage of personal property by purchaser in possession under executory contract. — In trover by a mortgagee, against the mortgagor’s vendor, for the conversion of a horse, the defendant may show that, by the terms of the contract of sale, the title was to remain in himself until the purchase-money was paid, whether the mortgagee had notice of such contract or not.</p> <p>2. Conflicting liens of landlord and mortgagee for advances. — In trover by the mortgagee of the tenant, against the landlord, for the conversion of the mortgaged crop, the defendant may show that, by the terms of the contract of renting, which were not known to the plaintiff, although he had knowledge of the renting, the tenant was indebted to him for advances, and turned over the crop to him, before the expiration of the term, because he was himself unable to gather it.</p>

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed by Martin H. Browder against William H. Lee, and sought to establish a resulting trust in certain lands, of which the complainant was in possession, and to enjoin an action at law which the defendant had instituted to recover them. The legal title to the lands was taken in the name of Hardy Browder, since deceased, who was the complainant’s father.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Eblder. The bill in this case was filed on the 11th March, 1871, by the executors of the last will and testament óf Howell Rose, deceased, against Mrs. Sarah S. Watson, who was the widow of H. P. Watson, deceased; and also against the personal representative of said H. P. Watson, the personal representative of William H. Rives, deceased, and Charles G. Gunter, a nonresident.

Heard before the Hon. A. W. Dillakd. The bill in this case was filed on the 29th December, 1869, by Adon Smith, a citizen of New York,… Held: that the defendant was estopped by the compromise from setting up this defence; and he therefore rendered a decree for the complainant, on final hearing on pleadings and proof, for the full amount of his debt, with interest, and ordered a sale of the mortgaged premises to satisfy it. The chancellor’s decree is now assigned as error.

<p> Action on Foreign Bill of Exchange, by Indorsee against Draiver and Indorser. </p> <p>1. Notice to agent of dishonor of hill. — To charge a party with notice of the dishonor of a bill of exchange, because notice was given to another person as his agent, it must be shown that it was within the scope of the agent’s duties to receive such notice; and the mere fact that he was “ the financial agent ” of his principal is not sufficient proof of this.</p> <p>2. Notice to partner of dishonor of hill. — When a bill of exchange is drawn by one partnership on another, and accepted by the latter, and the two partnerships have a common partner, notice of the dishonor of the bill is not necessary to charge the drawers.</p>

In the matter of tbe estate of George W. Tarver, deceased, on a citation issued at the instance of Nancy Tarver and others, distributees of said estate, against F. M. T. Tankersley, the administrator, requiring him to appear and make a final settlement of his administration.

Abpeal from the Chancery Court of Cherokee. Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCraw. Held: on final hearing on pleadings and proof, that the complainant was entitled to a specific performance, against both of the defendants, as to the west half of the southeast quarter of section 18, and rendered a decree accordingly ; and his decree is now assigned as error. The material facts are stated in the

<p> Bill in Equity by Wife, for Injunction against Sale under Mortgage of Property belonging to Statutory Separate Estate. </p> <p>1. Mortgage by husband and wife of statutory separate estate. — Under the statutes regulating t'he separate estates of married women, as judicially construed by this court, a married woman cannot, by joining with her husband in a mortgage of lands belonging to her statutory separate estate, to secure a debt contracted by her husband, impose any liability upon herself personally, or upon her property.</p> <p>2. Purchase of lands by husband for wife.— If the husband is indebted to the wife for moneys belonging to her statutory separate estate, which he has received and used, he may lawfully purchase and pay for lands, and take the title in her name, in payment of such indebtedness; and a court of equity will uphold the transaction as against his creditors.</p> <p>3. Gift by husband to wife. — A gift, or voluntary conveyance, by a husband to his wife, if not made with a fraudulent intent, can only be set aside at the suit of existing creditors.</p> <p>4. Equitable right of retainer. — If the husband is indebted to the wife, for moneys belonging to her statutory separate estate which he has received and used, and she iias in lier possession moneys belonging to him, which his creditors seek to reach, a court of equity will allow her to retain the amount of her own debt.</p>

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed by Nathan Bozeman against the executors of the last will and testament of Howell Rose, deceased, and sought to restrain them from- selling certain lands, under a power of sale contained in a mortgage, dated the 80th June, 1863, which was given to secure the payment of the following obligation : — “ Wetumpka, June 3,1863.

Tried before the Hon. M. J. Saeeole. This action was brought by M. Meyer & Co. against the appellant, a partnership alleged to be composed of J. W. Lapsley, D. C. Smiley, H. S. Poor, John Everett, P. D. Roddy, W. R. Bills, Thos. K. Ferguson, and Edward G. Barney; but the complaint was amended during the trial, by leave of the court, by striking out Edward, and inserting Elijah, as the Christian name of said Barney. The complaint contained five counts.

Appear from the Circuit Court of Conecuh. Tried before the Hon. P. O. Harper. Tire transcript in this case shows that, at the March term of said circuit court, 1867, Hon. Jno.

<p> jBill in Equity to enforce Vendor’s Lien for Purchase-money of Land. </p> <p>1. Presumption as to payment and extinguishment of debt, when administrator is both debtor and creditor. — As against the heirs-at-law of an intestate, seeking to enforce a vendor’s lien for the unpaid purchase-money of land, which was sold by the administrator, under an order of the probate court, for division, and bought by the administrator himself, a court of equity will not presume the payment of the debt by the administrator to himself, although he reported the sale to the court, and it was confirmed, and he afterwards charged himself with the amount in an annual settlement, but in fact never paid it.</p> <p>2. When purchaser is chargeable with notice of outstanding vendor’s lien. — When an administrator purchases lands at a sale made by himself] under an order of the probate court, for division, and reports the sale to the court, by which it is confirmed, but the purchase-money is not paid, and no conveyance is executed or ordered to be made, — a subsequent purchaser from him, or from his administrator, is chargeable with notice of the outstanding vendor’s lien.</p> <p>3. Parties to bill to enforce vendor’s lien. — When lands are sold by an administrator under an order of the probate court, and the purchase-money is not paid, the right to file a bill to enforce the vendor’s lien ordinarily belongs to the personal representative; but, when the sale is made for division among the heirs, they may maintain a bill for that purpose in their own names.</p> <p>4. Misjoinder of plaintiffs. — It was formerly a rule of chancery practice, that where several persons joined as plaintiffs in a suit, all must bo entitled to relief, or the bill would be dismissed; but, under the liberal system of amendments now prevailing, relief may be granted to a part of the plaintiffs, and the bill be dismissed as to the others.</p>

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCbaw. The bill in this case was filed by James M. Feagin, against the appellants, a mercantile firm doing business in the city of New York; and sought to enjoin the defendants from selling a certain tract of land, under a power of sale contained in a mortgage executed to them by Robert H. Haynes, and for a redemption and account of the mortgage debt.

Tried before the Hon. James S. Clark. This action was brought by Arthur H. Keller, against Joshua B. Moore, to recover a tract of land near Tuscumbia, containing about twenty acres; and was commenced on the 18th August, 1869.

Appeal-from the Probate Court of Mobile. In tbe matter of tbe settlement and distribution of the insolvent estate of Robert A. Baker, deceased, which was declared insolvent on the 6th July, 1867. The said Baker in his lifetime was, by appointment of the probate court of Dallas county, the guardian of -five minors, who are called in the bill of exceptions “ the Dallas children,” and died without making a settlement of his guardianship.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Albert B. Brassell, against Robert S. Williams.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by the administrator of Marcus Rogers, deceased, against Thomas J. Orme and the sureties on his official bond as general administrator of Montgomery county.

Tried before the Hon. James S. Clash. This action was brought by Joseph A. Trimble against Ellis Isbell, and was founded on a promissory note under seal for $2,500, executed by the defendant and one James P. O’Reilly, who was not sued. The said note was dated the 15th January, 1859, payable on the 1st January, 1860, and was given for the purchase money of slaves sold by plaintiff to said O’Reilly.

Tried before tbe Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley. This action was brought by Herrin Wise against Elijah Falkner, and was commenced on the 6th May, 1867.

The record does not show tbe name of tbe presiding judge. The complaint in this case was in these words : “ Tbe plaintiff claims of J. M. McGovern, a justice of tbe peace in and for the county aforesaid, and of James Kelly, John E. Powers, William H. Williamson, and Joseph Hastings, as sureties on tbe official bond of the said McGovern as such justice of tbe peace, the sum of one thousand dollars as damages, for that whereas, on tbe 11th day of December, 1871, tbe said…

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Feldeb. The original bill in this case was filed on the 23d June, 1869, by Edward N. Knox, an infant, who sued by his next friend, against Richard Jones and Smith Cullom, the sureties on the official bond of his deceased guardian, William Knox, and sought a settlement of the accounts of the deceased guardian. The letters of guardianship were granted by the probate court of Montgomery, on the 29th January, 1859.

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCrAW. The bill in this case was filed on the 12th December, 1870, by the personal representatives of John L. Wilkins, deceased, and sought to foreclose a mortgage of certain lands, which was executed by W. G. Carlisle, one of the defendants, on the 4th June, 1866, and was given to indemnify George F. Taylor against liability as his surety on a note for $700, payable on the 25th December, 1860, to J. Y. Trammell, as the executor of said John L.…

Tried before the Hon. James Q. - Smith. This action was brought by Mrs. Mary O. Gordon, the wife of Z. P. Gordon, against William Montgomery, who was her brother; and was commenced on the 23d September, 1872. The plaintiff and defendant were children and heirs-at-law of William Montgomery, sen., deceased.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed on the 3d August, 1870, by Tempy Ivey, as the widow of John J. Ivey, deceased, against Wiley Haden and Joseph S. Downing; and sought to recover a tract of land, containing forty acres, which had been sold by the administrator of said Ivey, under an order of the probate court of said county, and bought at the sale by said Haden; also, a decree divesting the legal title to said land out of. the defendants,…

Tried before the Hon. John M. Chilton. This action of ejectment was brought by Charles J. Swift, and the summons, or notice, with a copy of the declaration, was served on Mrs. Sarah J. Sledge as the defendant. The defendant appeared, and, without leave of the court, filed two pleas: the first averring that she was not in possession of the premises sued for, at the commencement of the suit; and the second, that she was not guilty of unlawfully withholding the premises.

Tried before the Hon. L. B. Strange. This action was brought by Jefferson Falkner, as the executor of the last will and testament of W. B. S. Gilmer, deceased, against J. H. Vincent, county treasurer of said county, to recover the interest on a claim against the county in favor of the plaintiff, which had been audited and allowed by the commissioners’ court; and was commenced by notice and motion.

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCliAW. The original bill in this case was filed on the 1st May, 1862, in the chancery court of JDe Kalb county, and was transferred, by consent of parties, to Etowah county. The complainants were judgment creditors of A. J. Chaney, against whom one of the judgments was rendered in 1855, while the others were rendered against his administrator in 1858.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Royster & Moore,, partners doing business as merchants in the city of Montgomery, against the appellant as a common carrier, to recover damages for injuries to two boxes of shoes, which were shipped from Philadelphia, per steamship Georgia, consigned to the plaintiffs at-Montgomery.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. ■ This action was brought by Albert B. Brassell, against Robert S. Williams, and was commenced on the 16th November, 1871.

Heard before tbe Hon. Charles Turner. The bill in this case was filed on the 31st August, 1871, by the widow and minor children of Thomas S. Melton, deceased, against Henry Andrews; and sought to establish a homestead exemption,- in favor of the complainants, in a tract of land containing forty acres, which was described as the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section twenty-four, township twenty, range twenty-one, and which the defendant claimed under a…

Tried before the Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley. This action was brought by Richard Flowers, against Charles Graves, as the administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed, of James Graves, deceased; was founded on several judgments, which the plaintiff had recovered before a justice of the peace in said county, in February, 1861, against Mrs. Sarah Graves, as the executrix of the last will and testament of the said James Graves; and was commenced on the 29th March, 1870- There was…

Heard before the Hon. R. S. Watkins. The bill in this case was filed, on the 16th June, 1871, by Meadow White, against Aaron G. Smith, who was his son-in-law ; and sought the rescission of a parol contract concerning a tract of land, which the complainant had previously purchased from one Bryant Holmes, and had paid about $2,000 of the purchase-money, but, having failed to pay the residue, the said Holmes had filed a bill in chancery to enforce his vendor’s lien on the land,…

Tried before the Hon. L. B. Strange. This action was brought by Henry H. Armstrong against James J. Bufford, to recover the agreed price of a certain quantity of guano, described as “ Soluble Pacific Guano,” sold by plaintiff to defendant on the 5th day of April, 1871. The complaint contained a count on a promissory note for one hundred dollars, which purported to be given for the price of the guano, and the common count for goods sold and delivered.

Tried before the Hon. L. B. Strange. This action was brought by P. H. Long against M. L. Patterson, and was commenced on the 9th June, 1870.

Tried before tbe Hon. W. J. Haralson. This action was brought by W. W. Cochran against R. S. Thornton, the complaint being in these words : “ The plaintiff claims of the defendant fifteen hundred dollars, a.s damages, for wrongfully taking the following goods and chattels, the property of the plaintiff, to wit, on the-day of February, 1871, eleven bales of lint cotton, seventeen thousand pounds of seed cotton, three hundred bushels of corn, and twenty-five bushels of wheat.”…

Tried before the Hon. M. J. SArnold. This action was brought by Samuel C. Waugh, against William M. Ridgeway, to recover the possession of a town lot in Selma; and was commenced before a justice of the peace, in October, 1861. On appeal to the circuit court, judgment was rendered for the defendant, in May, 1867; but this judgment was reversed on appeal by this court, at its January term, 1868, and the cause was remanded. See the case reported in 42 Ala. 368.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed on tbe 28th December, 1869, by Samuel Wolff, against the personal representatives of his deceásed copartner, James T. Shelton, who were the widow and two sons of said decedent; and sought to set aside an award, which had been made under a submission of the partnership accounts between the parties ; also, to enjoin an action at law on the award, and to have the partnership accounts stated and adjusted under…

Arpead from the Circuit Court of Cherokee. Tried before the Hon. Wl. L. Whitlock. This action was brought by Alfred Day and others, children and heirs-at-law of Calvin Day, deceased, against James H. Daniel, to recover the possession of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section two (2), in township nine (9), range nine (9) east, in said county, together with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 11th November, 1871.

Tried before the Hon. P. O. Harper. This action was brought by John D. Stearns against Jere. D. Gafford, and was commenced on the 14tb November, 1870. The only plea was the general issue, “ in short by consent, with leave to give in evidence any matter that might be specially pleaded; ” and the cause was tried on issue joined on that plea.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Feldeb. The original bill in this case was filed in May, 1878, by Charles T. Pollard, as the executor of the last will and testament of Thomas M. Cowles, deceased, against Thomas W. Cowles and his wife, Laura S. Cowles; and sought to foreclose a mortgage, executed by the defendants, to secure the unpaid purchase-money of a certain tract of land, which the complainant, as executor, had sold in December, 1859, under a decree of the said chancery…

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Ben Adams against the city council of Montgomery, to recover damages for the conversion of several hogs, which, having been found running at large within the corporate limits of the city, were taken up by the city marshal, and sold at public auction.

ApHEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith.

Tried before the Hon. P. O. Harper. This action was brought by William Miller against Vincent A. T. Underwood, was commenced on the 1st day of September, 1871, and was founded on a written contract, in the following words: “ Greenville, Ala., May 22d, 1868.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. Tbis case has been before this court at two former terms. It may be found reported in 42 Ala. 616-27, and 46 Ala. 664-97. The original bill was filed on tbe 15tb September, 1860, by Mrs. Mary D. Witter, by her next friend, against John Dudley.

Tried before the Hon. L. B. Strange. This action was brought by David Watson against L. F. McCoy, to recover the possession of a tract of land, together with damages for its detention. In the summons, and also in the marginal statement of the parties’ names in the complaint, the words “trustee of Ellow Esto Burson ” followed the plaintiff’s name, but there was no averment that he sued in that capacity.

Tried before the Hon. P. O. Happep. This action was brought by Sallie V. ,B. Hibbard against R. B. Brown, to recover the possession of a tract of land, which was in the possession of the defendant, together with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 30th August, 1873.

<p>Action on Promissory Note, by Payee against Makers.</p> <p>1. Defective service of process. — A defective or irregular service of process may be set aside on motion, but is not good matter for a plea in abatement.</p> <p>2. Amendment of summons and complaint, by striking out name of one defendant. — In an action on a promissory note, against several defendants, one of whom is improperly joined, the summons and complaint may be amended by striking out his name. ííov. Code, § 2809.</p> <p>3. Computation of time under statute of limitations. — An action, commenced on the 17th October, 1870, founded on a promissory note due on the 9th April, 1860, is not barred by the statute of limitations of six years (Rev. Code, § 2901), since the period of time which elapsed between the 11th January, 1861, and the 21st September, 1865, must be deducted.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Wm, S. Mudd. The opinion in this case was delivered at the January term, 1873 ; but, an application for a rehearing having been filed, it was withdrawn, and withheld until the present term. The action was brought by Charles M. Foster against Washington Moody, to recover the possession of a certain tract of land in said county, together with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 14th January, 1871.

Heard before the Hon. Charles Turner. The bill in this case was filed on the 7th August, 1872, by George F. Marlowe, against Eugene C. Haygood, individually, and as administrator of his deceased wife, Alice M. Haygood ; and sought to foreclose a mortgage on a tract of land, which was executed to the complainant by said Haygood and his wife, and to enjoin two actions at law, which the said Haygood had instituted, as administrator of his said wife, and in the name of her…

Tried before the Hon. P. O. Habpeb. This action was brought by the Southern Express Company against W. J. O’Bannon and others, and was founded on a penal bond executed by said O’Bannon as principal, and the other defendants as his sureties, which was in these words : “ Whereas W. J. O’Bannon is to be hereafter employed by the Southern Express Company in the business of forwarding by different railroads, steamboats, and other modes of conveyance, packages of any and all…

Heard before the Hon. R. S. Watkins. The bill in this case was filed by William H. Walker against William H. Robertson, and sought to enjoin the enforcement of a decree of the probate court of said county, rendered on a partial distribution of the assets of the insolvent estate of Jonathan McDonald, deceased, in favor of said Robertson and Walker jointly, and which the complainant insisted should have been rendered in his name alone ; and also to reform, on the ground of…

<p> Action against Sheriff, for Money claimed as Exempt. </p> <p>Exemption of officer’s costs. — Decs due to a justice of the peace, as a part of the costs in a civil cause tried before him, may be claimed by him as exempt from execution ; and when so claimed, the sheriff cannot retain and apply them to the satisfaction of an execution in his hands against the justice.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Wm. S. Mudd. This was a summary proceeding by notice and motion, in favor of P. A. Fitts, late county solicitor of Tuskaloosa county, against Samuel T. Palmer, county treasurer of said county, and the sureties on his official bond as such treasurer.

In the matter of the estate of Drury Thompson, deceased, on the application of his widow, Mrs. Nancy D. Thompson, for the appraisement and allotment to her of certain personal property, which she claimed as exempt from administration under the provisions of the act approved April 23, 1873. Session Acts 1872-3, p. 64.

Appeal front the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Harris Gunter, as the administrator of A. H. Christian, deceased, against Jefferson Falkner, and was founded on a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Chambers’ county, in October, 1867, against said Falkner and one E. G. Richards, for the sum of $700.50, with costs.

<p> Statutory Real Action in Nature of Rjeetment. </p> <p>1. Estoppel against tenant from denying landlord’s title. — Where a widow, whose dower has not been assigned, remains in possession of her husband’s lands, and leases them for a term of years, and the husband’s administrator brings ejectment against her tenant, the latter is estopped from denying the husband’s title.</p> <p>2. What title will support action. — A bare peaceable possession, under claim of title, though for a less period than would bar a real action, is sufficient to support ejectment against a trespasser, or against a tenant who cannot dispute the plaintiff’s title.</p> <p>3. Plea of not guilty ; effect of. — In ejectment by an administrator in his representative capacity, the plea of not guilty admits the plaintiff’s right to sue in that character, and renders it unnecessary for him to prove his letters of administration.</p>

Tried before the Hon. John Elliott. In this case, James H. Taylor, the sheriff of said county, made application to the circuit court for instructions how to apply certain moneys in his hands, arising from the sale of property under sundry executions against C. V. Sayre and others. The sale was made on the 10th day of June, 1871, and the proceeds of sale amounted to $950.

Heard before the Hon. Chables Tubnbb. This is an appeal from a decretal order of the chancellor, awarding a writ of assistance to the appellee, Waight E. Gibbs, to put him in possession of certain lands, which he had bought at a sale made by the register in chancery, on the 26th May, 1873, under a decree rendered in a suit pending in said chancery court, wherein the said Gibbs was complainant, and R. M. Nelson, as the administrator of John D. Nance, and others, were…

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Mrs. Ann M. Womack against William P. Bird, to recover damages for the defendant’s wrongful act in taking and carrying away “ twelve bales of lint cotton, averaging five hundred pounds per bale, five hundred bushels of corn, two hundred and fifty bushels of cotton seed, and twenty-two thousand pounds of cotton in the seed, or unginned cotton.” The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a special plea of…

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lowndes.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith.</p>

Tried before the- Hon. W. H. Crenshaw. This action was brought by the appellee against W. D. Perryman and others, and was founded on the official bond of said Perryman as town marshal of Greenville, which was dated the 18th January, 1870, and conditioned as follows : “ The conditions of the above obligation are, that whereas the above bound Walter D. Perryman has been appointed marshal of the town of Greenville, Butler county, Alabama, by the said corporate authorities, on…

<p> Motion for Taxation of Gosts, and Amendment of Judgment. </p> <p>1. Fees of witnesses as costs. — The foes of witnesses who attend in obedience to a subpoena, although they may not be examined, are properly taxed in the bill of costs, and must be paid by the unsuccessful party, unless it is shown that they were summoned unnecessarily or oppressively by the opposite party.</p> <p>2. Amendment of judgment nunc pro tunc. — A judgment cannot be amended nunc pro tunc by reference to an agreement of the parties, which has not been made a part of the record.</p>

Tried before the Hon. W. H. Crenshaw. This action was brought by Isaac Long against the appellee, to recover four barrels of whiskey, which were shipped to the plaintiff from Baltimore, and transported by the defendant, as a common carrier, from Montgomery to Greenville; together with damages for their detention.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by B. F. Hudgens against Mark Jackson, to recover the possession of the following lands, as described in the complaint: “ thirteen and one-fourth acres off of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter, and twenty-six and two-thirds acres off of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter, and the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter, and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter, and the…

Tried before tbe Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by John Powell against Leopold Young, to recover a city lot in Montgomery, together with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 1st November, 1872. The cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty. It was admitted that the lot belonged to John W. Gordon, on the 15th March, 1861.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith.</p>

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Edmund Harrison against Albert G. McGehee, and was founded on the defendant’s promissory note for $140, dated the 30th April, 1862, and payable one day after date, to Shular & Ardis.

Heard before the Hon. A. W. Dillabd. The bill in this case was filed, on the 4th July, 1873, by Mark D. L. Moore, against R. D. Faggard, Wiley Reed, and Henry Lavender, and sought to enjoin a judgment, which the said defendants, suing as partners under the firm name of R. D. Faggard & Co., had recovered against the said Moore, in the circuit court of said county, on the 3d April, 1873.

In the matter of the petition of Alfred McCalley, propounding for probate a certain paper writing as the last will and testament of Emeline Robinson, deceased. The petition was in writing, and a demurrer was interposed to it by John Small, as contestant, who specified several causes of demurrer.

Tried before the Hon. M. J. Saeeold. This action was brought by James M. Rushing against Joseph L. Bozeman and James A. Bozeman, and was founded on the defendants’ promissory note for $850, dated the 8th January, 1867, and payable to the plaintiff on the 1st January, 1868, with interest from date. The record does not show what pleas were filed.

Tried before the Hon. James S. Clark. This was an action on •the case to recover damages for the wrongful and malicious suing out of an attachment, and was instituted by Edward Garth against G. G. Hemingway. The defendant pleaded, that the attachment was not sued out wrongfully, maliciously, nor without probable cause; and the cause was tried on issue joined on that plea.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Mrs. Caroline Lomax against Spear & Thomason as partners, to recover the possession of a storehouse in Montgomery, which the defendants had rented from the plantiff, and held over after the expiration of their term ; and was commenced before a justice of the peace, in October, 1865.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Mrs. Mary Jane Robinson against John Quinlan, to recover several city lots in Montgomery, and was commenced on the 27th May, 1872» On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows,- the case was submitted to the jury, under the charge of the court, on an agreed statement of facts, substantially as follows : On and before the 31st December, 1839, Mrs. Sarah H. Carpenter was seized in fee of the lots in controversy;…

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed on the 18th June, 1870, by John B. Ellison & Sons, merchants and partners doing business in the city of Philadelphia, against Mrs. Hannah M. Halfman individually, -and as executrix of the last will and testament of Ethelbert Halfman, her deceased husband, and against the children and devisees of said Halfman.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed on the 17th September, 1870, by the appellants, on behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the late firm of S. & E. Deming, against John W. Mallett, as the administrator of the respective estates of the said Simeon Deming and Ezra Deming, who together composed the said firm, and against the sureties on his official bonds as such administrator.

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, against the Montgomery and Eufaula Railroad Company and John Wilson, to recover damages, or compensation, for lands taken by said company, under authority granted by its charter, for its right of way; also, to enjoin the further use by the defendants of a house which had been erected on lands taken by the company for its right of way, and which was used by Wilson as a storehouse for…

Tried before the Hon. James S. Clark. This action was brought by John Scott against John P. Lansford, and was commenced on the 9th July, 1869. The original complaint contained only a count on a promissory note for $200, dated the 22d November, 1865. At the October term, 1873, by leave of the court, the plaintiff amended his complaint, by adding the common counts for goods sold and delivered, money had and received, and on an account stated.

The record does not show the name of the presiding judge. In this case, as the record shows, a motion was entered on the docket of said circuit court on the 15th September, 1871, in the name of “ Frederick N. Lawrence, as surviving assignee of W. G. Lane & Co.,” for a summary judgment against F. M. Shouse, as sheriff of Talladega county, and the sureties on his official bond as sheriff, on account of the failure of the said sheriff to return an execution, which came to his…

The record does not show the name of the presiding judge. This action was brought by Samuel G. Briggs against Charles Coleman, county treasurer of said county of Greene, for an alleged breach of the condition of his official bond.

Tried before the Hon. P. O. Harper. This action was brought by Benjamin D. Wright, as the executor of the last will and testament of C. P. Knapp, deceased, against John Kingsbury ; the complaint being in these words: “ The plaintiff, as executor aforesaid, claims of the defendant five hundred dollars damages; for that whereas, on the 22d day of October, 1870, the plaintiff recovered of the defendant, by the judgment of the county court of Escambia county, in the State of…

Heard before the Hon. Adam C. Felder. The bill in this case was filed by Elijah Falkner, against Carey Curry and Heron Wise, and sought to enforce a vendor’s lien for the unpaid purchase-money of a tract of land, which said Curry had bought from one Randolph Kent, and after-wards sold and conveyed to his co-defendant, Wise. The unpaid note for the purchase-money was transferred by said Kent to the complainant.

Tried before the Hon.” John D. Cunningham. This action was brought by the appellants, who were merchants doing business as partners in the city of Montgomery, against Marks, Fitzpatrick & Co., partners and warehousemen in said city, to recover damages for the conversion of six bales of cotton. The cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Gabe Whatley, a freedman, against James L. Holt, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by the fall of the new market-house in the city of Montgomery, in October, 1872, while he was employed as a workman by the defendant, who had undertaken to do all the wood-work for the contractor, Geo. M. Figh.

In the matter of the estate of William Lowry, on the petition of James T. Newsom and wife, distributees, for a scire facias to revive a decree rendered against tbe administrator, Isaiah Lowry, on final settlement of his accounts in said probate court.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit' Court of Marengo.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith.</p>

Tried before the Hon. A. W. Dillard. The bill in this case was filed, on the 26th April, 1871, by Pleasant M. Tindal and others, children and grandchildren of Harvey Tindal and Sarah E. Tindal, his wife, against William B. Drake and others; and sought a partition of certain lands, which were in the possession of said Drake, and which the complainant claimed under certain deeds hereinafter referred to, and an account of the rents and profits while in his possession; and it…

Tried before the Hon. M. J. Saeeold. This action was brought by Mrs. Susan B. Hill, suing as, tbe administratrix of her deceased husband, Charles W, Hill, against George Erwin and Allen C. Jones; was founded on the defendants’ promissory note for §40,386.98, dated the 10th day of February, 1863, and payable to tbe plaintiff, as such administratrix, on the 1st March, 1864; and was-commenced on tbe 9th day of March, 1866.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by the appellants, who were the children of Mrs. Mildred Holcombe, and the grandchildren of George R. Clayton, deceased, to recover a tract of land in Montgomery, which the plaintiffs claimed as devisees in remainder under the will of the said George R. Clayton, and which was in the possession of .the defendant, who held under mesne conveyances from Mrs. Mildred Holcombe and her husband.

Heard before the Hon. B. B. McCraw. This case was decided at the June term, 1872. Nothing but the opinion of the court has come to the hands of the reporter. There seems to be a mistake in the statement of facts contained in the opinion, as to a severance having been allowed as to Allen and Johnson.

Heard before the Hon. A. W. Dillakd. The bill in this cáse was filed by Jobn W. Dn Bose and others, children of Kimbro C. Du Bose and Elizabeth Du Bose, his wife, against Carlisle, Smith & Co., E. K. Carlisle, and others; and sought to establish a trust in favor of the complainants in certain lands, which their father, the said K. C. Du Bose, had bought in his own name, and had afterwards conveyed by deed of trust to W. E. Clarke, as trustee, for the benefit and security of…

Tried before the Hon. M. J. Saeeold. The appellant in this case obtained a judgment in the said circuit court of Dallas, on the 7th December, 1866, against Antonio Aicardi and Thomas J. Portis, and sued out an alias execution on it on the 11th April, 1878.