Volume 54 — Alabama Reports

Heard before Hon. Adam C. Felder. The appellant, Howell, filed this bill against the appellee, Motes, to enjoin the collection of a judgment at law, which the latter had obtained against him.

Tried before Hon. Philemoñ O. Harper. This was an action of trover by tbe appellee against G. W. Bbodes, for tbe conversion of about ninety bushels of corn.

Tried before ílon. Vs. B. Wood. In this case the appellant requested the court below to give several charges, which were refused. Exception was reserved to this action of the court, and it is here assigned for error. The record, however, does not show that the charges were asked in writing.

The appellant, Smith, filed his petition in the probate court, praying that Sarah Phillips, executrix of James D, Phillips, deceased, be required to execute a good and sufficient bond for' the performance of her duties as such executrix.

Tried .before Hon. Milton J. Saepold. This was an action, brought by the appellee against appellants, on two promissory notes, given under the following circumstance^: In 1861, appellant Hawks, wishing to purchase some lands then for sale, he and Huekabee had several conversations about' purchasing it, and Huekabee told him to buy and he would go halves with him.

<p>Appeal from Chancery Court of Butler.</p> <p>Heard before Hon. H. Austill,</p> <p>Tbe case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Appeal from Probate Court of DeKalb.</p> <p>The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion;</p>

Tried before Hon. John Elliott. This cause was submitted to the circuit judge for decision, without the intervention of a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, “ both parties to have the right of appeal, upon the record without a bill of exceptions.” The agreed statement of facts are as follows : 1st. On the 20th of December, 1820, the legislature passed an act “ to incorporate an Aqueduct Company in the city of Mobile.” 2d. On the 24th of December, 1824, the Mobile…

N. S. Graham. The facts are stated in the opinion. The right given by the act of 1872-3 is of that character over which equity exercises jurisdiction, and hence the remedy given at law is cumulative. — ■ Waldron, Islcy & Go. v. Simmons, 28 Ala. 629. There is no equity in the bill. But for the act of the legislature, appellant had not a right to proceed directly against the trust estate, either at law or in equity.

<p>Bill in Equity to remove Cloud on Tide, (fee,</p> <p>Case re-affirmed. — Held, on the authority of Stoudenmire v. Brown (48 Ala. 699), that section 93 of the revenue law of 1868, which requires the owner of land sold for taxes to deposit double the amount of the purchase money, &cl, before he shall be allowed to prosecute or defend any suit for the same against the purchaser, is unconstitutional.</p>

Heard before Hon. B. B. McCraw. The bill in this case was filed by appellants in behalf of themselves, and all other tax-payers of the county, to enjoin the collection of a tax levied to pay interest on certain bonds issued by the county of Barbour, in aid of the Yicksburg <fc Brunswick Rail Road Company, and to have said bonds canceled, <fec. The chancellor dismissed the bill for want of equity.

<p> Bill in Equity to enforce Vendor’s Lien, dec. </p> <p>Amendment, what makes a new ease, and is not allowable. — Where the right set Up in the original bill is alleged to be derived from a sale of lands by the administrators of the deceased owner, under a special act of the legislature, not set forth by its ,title or otherwise indicated, an amendment setting forth tho act, and rights asserted under a sale made by the legatees of the deceased, is a departure from the case made by the original bill, and can not be allowed.</p>

Tried before Hon. W. S. Mudd. An information in tbe name of tbe State, on tbe relation of A. S. Hamilton, was filed against “Tbe Alabama Coal & Navigation Company” (a corporation formed under “An act to amend tbe corporation laws of Alabama,” approved August 12tb, 1868, to improve tbat portion of tbe Warrior river at and above Tuskaloosa, &c.), praying tbat its charter be annulled, and judgment of dissolution be pronounced against it, upon various grounds set forth in tbe…

<p> BUI in Equity to restrain Mortgage Sale, &c. </p> <p>1. Sale of properiy; when does not constitute usurious contract. — A sale of cotton al a price beyond its real value to one -who resold for a less price, will not be denounced as an usurious transaction, unless there was a proposition to the seller to borrow, and negotiations terminating in a sale ; or a knowledge of the borrower’s necessities, and that he' was purchasing at an exhorbitant price to relieve RimaAlf by a subsequent sale at a less price ; or something showing a design on tlie part of the vendee to borrow, and the vendor to loan money under device of a sale, whereby under guise of excess of price, usurious interest was reserved. If such design existed, it is immaterial in what shape it is veiled.</p> <p>2. Injunction; when properly dissolved. — ka injunction, to restrain a mortgage sale, issued on a bill alleging that complainants were in pecuniary distress, which they sought to relieve by borrowing money of defendants who proposed a sale of cotton, which complainants purchased at a price beyond its value, and executed a mortgage to secure price, &c., and that the transaction was an usurious device, &c., is properly dissolved on answers denying Imowledge of complainants' condition, or purpose of purchase, flatly contradicting allegations as to proposition to borrow money, and asserting that che ■ transaction grew out of a proposition to buy at a price the defendants had previously declined.</p> <p>3. Motion to expunge, when should be made. — A motion to expunge from the transcript matter alleged to have been improperly incorporated theroin, and to disallow the registers costs for such portion, to meet with a favorable consideration, should be promptly made, and not delayed with a view of speculating upon the chances of imposing costs upon the adversary.</p> <p>4. Same ; what should show. —Transcripts being usually made out under the supervision of appellant’s counsel, a motion to expunge portions of the record and disallow costs for it, should show that the appellant gave proper directions about making out the transcript, or endeavored to have tho objectionable portion omitted.</p> <p>Note by Reporter. — After the decision in the cause at the January term, 1875, and the refusal of the application for a rehearing at this term, appellants submitted a motion to expunge certain portions of the transcript, upon which the following opinion was delivered:</p>

<p>Appeal from Chancery Court of Calhoun.</p> <p>Heard before Hon. B. B. McCraw.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

James Q. Smith. Dane, the appellant, was the sheriff of Mobile county prior to December 17th, 1878, when the act was passed reducing the allowance for feeding prisoners in jail to forty cents per diem, and continued in office until the 20th day of November, 1874.

Heard before Hon. A. W. Dillard.. This was a motion to dismiss an appeal, under circumstances fully set forth in the opinion.

Heard before Hon. Adam C- Felder.. The opinion states the facts. That the county is liable for the outstanding bonds is admitted; but here its liability in connection with tbe barbor improvement ceases. The county is by statute a municipal corporation. The county commissioners are a quasi political corporation. — Ang. & Ames on Corp., §§ 14, 23. Their ordinary duties and powers are defined by statute.

This was an application for a certiorari to bring np a complete transcript, based on affidavits filed. These affidavits did not come into the Reporter’s hands, but the point decided sufficiently appears, without further reference to them.

Jas. Q. Smith. The appellee Foster ivas fined one hundred dollars in the mayor's court, under the provisions of an ordinance of the city, for resisting an officer. He appealed to the circuit court, in which court, on motion of Foster, the case was dismissed, and the costs taxed against the appellant. The appellant moved to have the judgment entered without costs, which was refused; hence this appeal.

Tried before Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley. Guinn, the appellee, entered a motion on the docket of the circuit court, against Caldwell, “treasurer of Randolph county, and his sureties on his official bond,” who were named, for judgment against them “for the failure of the treasurer, on demand, to pay an allowed claim against the county, when there were funds in the treasury to pay the same — said claim No. 86, and registered 7th January, 1867, demand ma’de 2d February, 1874, by…

<p>Appeal from Etowah. Circuit Court.</p> <p>Tried, before Hon. W*. L. Whitlock.</p> <p>The appellee, Hill, brought this action against the State to recover damages for the killing of his horses by a train upon the Alabama & Chattanooga Bailroad, while it was in the possession of the State and operated by its receiver. The court refused, at the instance of the State, to charge the jury that the plaintiff could not recover in this action, and this is now assigned for error.</p> <p>The State is not liable for the negligence, malfeasance, misfeasance, or torts of its agents or employees.&emdash;Story on Agency, § 319, 320; United Stales v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720; Seymour v. Van Slyck, 8 Wheat. 403.</p> <p>The act which authorizes suits against the State is general and not limited to actions ex-contractu; but extends to torts as well. The State stands in the shoes of a private corporation and is responsible as such for the acts of its agents.</p>

<p>Appeal from Probate Court of Cherokee.</p> <p>This was a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, upon a statement of facts set forth in the opinion.</p>

Heard before Hon. it. C. Speake. Appellant was the administratrix of the estate of Wm. Robinson, which was solvent, and undergoing administration. The appellee, Joplin, having obtained a judgment against James P. Robinson, one of the heirs at law and distributees, had levied on and was proceeding to sell his interest in the lands of the estate.

Tried before Hon. Wi. H. Smith. This was a suit brought by appellee on a promissory note, payable on demand, on which were indorsed three payments. The appellant filed a plea of non assumpsit, and a special plea that no demand had been made before suit brought. Issue was joined upon the first plea, and the bill of exceptions recites that a demurrer was sustained to the second plea, but the record discloses no action on the demurrer.

Heard before Hon. Charles Turner. This was a general creditor’s bill, filed by appellant, in behalf of itself and all other creditors of the defendant corporation, against “ The Central Agricultural and Mechanical Association,” and certain of its stockholders.

Tried before Hon. James S. Clark. Tbe opinion states tbe facts. The award was not in con» fortuity with, the submission. Submissions and awards should be read and interpreted, in connection with the pleadings in the cause. — Merritt v. Thompson, 27 N. Y. 225. The award is only good as to matters properly submitted. — Carson v. Carson, 1 Met. (Ky.) 434; Fulton v. Wiley, 32 Yermont, 762; Griffin v. Hadley, 8 Jones’ Law, 82; Codkv.

<p> Action on Common Counts. </p> <p>1. Witness; when competent. — One contracting with an agent, and suing the principal alone on the contract, is competent to testify as to the terms of the contract, although the agent be then dead. The exception contained in § 2704 K. O., has no application to such a case.</p> <p>2. Declarations of agerú; what admissible against principal. — Declarations made by the agent, after the contract was made by him, are admissible against his principal, where the agency still continued, and the declarations formed part of a conversation between the parties, mutually explanatory of the contract just entered into, or formed part of the agent’s report to his principal.</p> <p>3. Bxception; when unavailing. — A party objecting to the admission of such declarations should negative the existence of facts which authorize their admission ; failing in this, the exception will be unavailing. Error must be clearly shown to authorize a reversal.</p>

<p>Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court.</p> <p>Tried before Hon. W. B. Wood.</p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p> Assault with Intent to Murder. </p> <p>1. Assault with intent to murder ; province 'of jury as to. — Unnecessary force or rudeness while ejecting defendant from the cars, may deprive an assault then made, upon a person engaged in putting him off, of its felonious character ; but whether the provocation was adequate to that end, is for the jury to determine under the evidence, and a charge which withdraws that question from them, is properly refused.</p> <p>2. Verdict, form of; what sufficient. — A verdict as follows : “ We, the jury, find guilty, as charged in the indictment,” returned by a jury, duly sworn and charged with the trial of a sole defendant for an assault with intent to murder, will authorize sentence for that offense, although the verdict does not expressly mention who is found guilty.</p>

Tried before Hon. Luther B. Smith. The appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment, which charged that he “ broke into and entered the shop, store, warehouse, or other building of Messrs. Lamb, Blair A Co., in which goods, merchandise or other valuable things were kept for use, sale or deposit, with intent to steal,” Ac. He moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the ownership was not properly laid in the indictment.

<p> Bill in Equity to Foreclose Mortgage, &c.. </p> <p>Evidence ; what not considei-ed. — On appeal from a decree in chancery, this court will disregard depositions contained in the record, unless they are set down in the note of testimony, as required by the 74th rule of chancery practice.</p>

Tried-before Hon. J. MoCaleb Wiley. Appellants commenced this suit in their firm name merely, by attachment before a justice of the peace. The appellee moved to quash the attachment, because the affidavit failed to show in what capacity the person making the affidavit acted, or what connection or interest the affiant had in the case. The justice’s court permitted the affidavit to be amended so as to show that the affiant was the agent and attorney of the plaintiffs.

<p> Indictment for Arson. </p> <p>1. Grand jury ; objections to, when too late — Irregularities in the formation of the grand jury which found the indictment, can not be objected to after plea and verdict, and can not be made the basis for arrest oí judgment.</p> <p>2. Forman, oath, of, presumption as to. — Where the record recites that the foreman was appointed by the court, and it was “ ordered that he be sworn as foreman of said grand jury, which is accordingly done, and the other persons aforesaid are ais > sworn as jurors as aforesaid,” it must be presumed in the absence of plea in abatement, sustained by proof, that the proper oath was administered.</p> <p>3. Grand jury, order for summoning ; what sufficient. — A recital in the record that 1 ‘ it appearing to the court that no persons have been summoned for grand jurors for this term of the court, it is therefore ordered that the sheriff forthwith summon,” &c., sufficiently shows that the order was made “ in consequence of some neglect on the part of the judge of probate, sheriff,” &c.</p> <p>4. Juror, objection to, when too late. — An objection to a juror, on the ground that he was a member of the grand jury which found the indictment, comes too late after the prisoner has accepted him ; nor can the fact that one of the jurors rendering the verdict was a member of the grand jury which found the indictment, be made matter upon which to arrest judgment.</p>

This was aii application for certiorari, mandamus, or other remedial writ, to vacate and quash certain proceedings, before tbe judge of the tenth judicial circuit (Hon. John Henderson,) wherein, 'on petition, under tbe statute for rehearing, a supersedeas, dec., was granted in tbe case of Seflin v. The Rock, Mills Manufacturing & Lumber Company, The petition commences as follows: “ The undersigned, Fountain P. Handle, a citizen of Bandolph county, in said State, respectfully…

Tried before Hon. Philemon O. Harper. The complaint in this case was as follows: “The plaintiff, as trustee of Frances Watson, a married woman, claims of tbe defendant the following personal property, to-wit: One bay horse, of the value of two hundred dollars, for the use and hire thereof from the first day of January, 1870, which property, when recovered, -frill be assets in his hands, belonging to the estate of the said Frances Watson.” An affidavit setting forth that the…

<p> Bill in Equity by Ward to subject Estate of deceased Surety of Guardian in hands of Administrator. </p> <p>1. Mil in equity; when ward may maintain to reach estate of surety of guardian in hands of administrator. — A ward whose guardian was indebted on final settlement, may after return of “ no property ” as to him, maintain a bill against the administrator and distributees of a deceased surety of the guardian, to subject to the satisfaction of the decree, money remaining in the hands of the administrator, derived from a sale of the surety’s property, for which judgments had been rendered against him on final settlement in favor of the distributees ; and it is not ground of demurrer that complainant did not pray an injunction to prevent the money being paid over, or proceed as in the case of equitable attachments.</p> <p>2. Distributees, rights qf.~-Where, in such a ease, the property of the surety was all sold, (without malting any reservation or exemption to the extent allowed by law), and converted into money, the equity of the minor distributees to the money, to the extent which the statute allowed an allotment in money in lieu of specific exemptions, is equal to that of a creditor of the intestate, and having a legal advantage, a court of equity will not allow their rights to be disturbed except as to the surplus remaining after deducting the amonnt allowed in lien of exemptions.</p>

<p> Application for Mandamus. </p> <p>1. Judgment; when not void. — Where an administrator is removed pending suit, his removal must be brought to the knowledge of the court by plea in •abatement. 'When this is not done, a judgment in his favor, although rendered after his removal, is not void.</p> <p>2. Motion for revivor; when in time. — A motion.for revivor in the name of the succeeding administrator, although made more than eighteen months after the removal of his predecessor, comes in time, if made at the same term at which the plea in abatement is filed.</p>

Tried before Hon, James Q. Smith. This was an application made by Joel White, to the circuit court for a mandamus to compel the treasurer of the county to pay certain warrants drawn by the probate judge, for stationery furnished him for the use of the county, at various times between August, 1873, and March, 1875.

Tried before Hon. J. C. Meadors. The appellants, Boit & McKenzie, brought suit against the appellee Corr, as indorser of a promissory note made by Cooper & Co., payable to his order. The note read as follows : Opelika, Ala., April 15th, 1873. On the 12th day of October next, we promise to pay to the order of John Corr twenty-six hundred and fifty dollars, at any bank in Savannah, Georgia. Value received.

Tried before Hon. Milton J. Saeeold. This was a suit by the appellee to recover of appellant, as administrator of Daniel Stewart, the amount of a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ $150.00. Dallas County, Ala., May 12th, 1868.

Heard before Hon. A. W. Dillard. The appellant, Blanks, in November, 1874, filed this bill against the appellee, Mims, to enjoin the latter fiom prosecuting an action at law against him upon a note given for the purchase money of lands, &c. Blanks purchased certain lands of Mims, paying part in cash and giving his note for the remainder of the purchase money, and thereupon entered into possession and erected valuable improvements, receiving from Mims a bond for title, which…

Tried before Hon. W. J. Haralson. This was a suit by the appellee on a bond, of which the following is a copy: “720.00. Three years after date I promise to pay to John M. Patton or order, the snm of seven hundred and twenty dollars, for value of him received. Witness my hand and seal at Huntsville, Alabama, this the 20th day of July, A. D. 1861. .

Tried before Hon. John A. Minnis. The appellee, Mastín, brought this action against the appellant, Burkham.

J. E. Cobb, Appellant was convicted of burglary, upon an indictment which charged that he “ broke into and entered a shop, store, Warehouse or other building, the property of J. Z. Andrews, in which goods, merchandize or other valuable thing, was kept for use, sale or deposit, with intent to steal, against the peace,” &c. The indictment was found in the circuit court of Barbour, and a changfe of venue was granted to Bullock circuit court, on account of local prejudice.

Tried before Hon. John TL Henry. Tbe appellant, George Williams, was convicted of bigamy. To prove tbe second marriage, tbe State introduced from tbe record of marriage licenses of tbe probate court of Butler-county, Alabama, a marriage license, authorizing tbe solemnization of tbe rites of matrimony between George W. Williams and Sarab E. Byrd, and a certificate of a justice of tbe peace that be bad married tbe parties on tbe 9tb day of March, 1873.

Tried before Hon. John K Henry. The indictment in this case contained two counts.

■ Appeal from Chancery Court of Sumter. Heard before Hon. A. W. Dillard. This was a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, on the ground that no final decree had been rendered. The facts upon which, it is based are sufficiently stated in the ■opinion.

Circuit Court of St. Clair. Tried before Hon. W. L. Whitlock. Held: as a portion of the time necessary to create the bar of ten years, deducting the period during which the statute of limitations was suspended during the late war.” Appellant excepted separately to the giving of each of these charges, and here assigns them, together with the rulings of the court upon the introduction of the deeds…

Tried before Hon. J. MoCaleb Welet. Appellants, in tbe spring of 1873, sold tbe appellee and various other persons, a commercial fertilizer, known as the “ Soluble Pacific Guano,” for which the purchasers executed notes, reciting that consideration.

Tried before Hon. J. E. Cobb. The appellant, under the name of William A. Miller, was indicted for the murder of one John Eord. There was some evidence tending to show that the defendant apprehended an attack from Eord. The evidence showed that the deceased and accused had met, about an hour before the killing, and attempted to fight, but had been prevented from doing so by mutual friends; that the accused had left the place, and shortly afterwards returned with a pistol.

Arpeax. from Circuit Court of Greene. Tried before Hon. Luther B. Smith. Tbe appellant was indicted for rape upon one Yiney Hicks. Sbe was examined as a witness, and testified to the circumstances of tbe assault upon ber, and that tbe defendant threw ber down, and accomplished bis purpose. Sbe made but little outcry then, but told some persons afterwards.

Tried before Hon. George H. Craig. At the fal’l term, 1873, of the circuit court of Hale, Murfree recovered a judgment against John and Jabez Nelson. Execution was issued and placed in the hands of appellant, as sheriff, on the 21st day of November, 1873.

Tried before Hon. Harry T. Toulmin. The original indictment charged that the defendants killed the deceased “by striking him with a stick, club or other weapon of like character,” and the copy served upon them alleged that the killing was done with a “ stick, club or other weapon of like description of like character.” No objection was made to the correctness of the copy served until after trial and verdict, when a motion fvas made to amend the record, so as to show what…

<p> Amendment Nunc Pro Tunc. </p> <p>1. Amendment nunc pro tunc; what sufficient to authorize. — Where the record shows that the plaintiff in ejectment recovered judgment on verdict for the lands sued for, and damages for use and occupation, this is ample evidence on which to base an amendment nunc pro tune, at a subsequent term, altering the judgment so as to make it for the recovery of possession, and also to award with it a writ of habere facias possessionem.</p>

Tried before Hon. H. D. Clayton. The appellees, D. & ¡3. A. Williams, composing a mercantile firm, doing business under that name, brought suit in a justice’s court against the appellant to recover seventy-nine and 20-100 dollars, for failure to deliver a case of boots, received for transportation to the appellees. The justice rendered judgment against them, and they appealed to the- circuit court. In that court, they filed a complaint containing two counts.

<p> Action on Common Counts. </p> <p>1. Gammon counts; when recoven'y may be had under. — Under the common ■counts there can be no recovery, if there is a special contract open and unrescinded, embracing the same subject matter; if, however, the contract has been executed and nothing remains but payment of money by the defendant, resort may be had to the common counts.</p> <p>‘¿. Same; replication, what bad. — To a complaint counting on the common ■counts, the defendant pleaded, among other things, the statute of limitations, failure of consideration, and that consideration of plaintiff’s claim was for ■Confederate treasury notes, deposited by plaintiff with defendant, which defendant was ready and offered to return. The plaintiff replied generally to each plea, and specially in substance, that she deposited the money under a special contract, which provided, among other things, that a certain number of days notice was necessary to place the bank in default for not paying on demand ; that interest would commence ten days after deposit, without demand, if remaining more than four months, and varying according to the length of time the deposit remained, and interest to bo compounded annually at five per cent The breach alleged is a demand before suit, of the deposit, and interest compounded annually at five per cent, and a refusal.</p> <p>Held: The replication was a departure from the complaint, and neither traversed, confessed and avoided the pleas or set up matters of estoppel, but introduced a new cause of action ; for both of which reasons demurrers were properly sustained to the replication.</p>

Tried before Hon. 0. Pelham. Appellant, Adams, sued the appellee, Thomas, on a promissory note made by defendant, for four hundred and twenty-five dollars, which showed on its face that it was given for a “part of the northwest quarter section twenty-one, range seven, township twenty-one, known as the residence now occupied by Mrs. Clayton, containing thirty-five acres, more or less.” A trial was had on plea of the general issue, with leave to give in evidence any matter…

Tried before Hon. C. J. L. Cunningham. This cause was commenced in the circuit court, and transferred and tried in the criminal court, which was abolished by the legislature before the bill of exceptions was signed. A bill was agreed upon by counsel, and the judge certified that it was a fair statement of the facts and the rulings thereon, and that he would have signed the same as a bill of exceptions, had it been presented to him before his court was abolished.

Tried before Hon. Luther E. Smith. The appellant was convicted of grand larceny.

Heard before Hon. B. B. McCraw. The appellee, Whitlock, was surety upon the guardianship bond of Poore, who, to indemnify him and the other sureties, executed a deed of trust to Whitlock on the lands in controversy. Poore sold the lands to Coker, executed a conveyance and put him in possession.

Heard before Hon. B. B. McCraw. The appellees, legatees under the will of Noah Fountain, filed their bill against the appellants, the executors of his last will and testament, and the sureties upon their bond, to compel a final settlement of the estate, in the court of chancery.

Tried before Hon. Harry T. Toulmin. This was a summary proceeding, commenced by the appellee, Underwood, against the appellant Scruggs, who was treasurer of the county, for his failure, on demand, to pay a county warrant. Appellee’s father had been clerk of the circuit court, and the warrant had been drawn by order of the commissioner’s court in May, 1871, for fees in State cases, accruing between March 1st, Í870, and May, 1871, under § 4438 of the Revised Code.

<p> Bill to foreclose Mortgage, &c. </p> <p>lien of execution; how lost. — Where the plaintiff, on valuable consideration, causes his execution in the hands of the sheriff to be held up for a specified time, he will be postponed to the lien of a mortgage attaching in the interval of such suspension.</p>

Tried before Hon. Henry D. Clayton. This was a suit by the appellees against the appellant on a promissory note. She pleaded want of consideration, and issue was joined on that plea.

<p>Appeal from City Court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Tried before Hon. John A. Minnis.</p> <p>Tbe opinion states tbe case.</p>

Tried before Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley. The appellee, Slaughter, brought this action against the appellant, Turlington, to recover money paid him by mistake, &c. Slaughter had purchased lands of Turlington, and the latter filed his bill in chancery to enforce the vendor’s lien, obtained a decree pro confesso, and an order of sale.

A citation haying been served upon appellee to make final settlement of his guardianship, he moved the probate court “to substitute an order for a lost order or destroyed order,” made in his guardianship of appellees, “by the former probate judge, on the 23d day of February, 1867,” showing a “final settlement of the guardianship and decree thereon discharging appellee from his said trust.” An amendment to this motion, states that “ said order was made by the former probate…

<p> Bill in Equity to rescind Sale of Land. </p> <p>1. Rescission; what will not authorize. — Where lands are purchased, partly paid for, conveyed to the purchaser, and he is let into possession and then dies — the non-payment of the balance of the debt, coupled with the facts that it, with the other debts due by the purchaser’s estate will render it insolvent, and that his administrators are willing to a rescission, will not alone authorize a decree for rescission.</p> <p>2. Administrator; consent of, for what ineffectual. — The consent of an administrator to a decree of rescission, in a suit against him and the heirs of his intestate, to rescind a purchase of land by the intestate, can not divest the interest of the heirs.</p> <p>. 3. Guardian ad litem; effect of admissions by. — In a suit against an infant heir to enforce a vendor’s lien on lands descended to him, an admission by the guardian ad litem of the execution or consideration of the notes, the basis of suit, is not binding on or evidence against him, and does not relieve the complainant from proving his whole case.</p>

Tried before Hon. George H. Craig. Tbis was an information in tbe nature of quo warranto to try tbe right of the appellee to the office of sheriff of Hale county. The appellee, in his answer, set up the facts stated in the opinion, and the relator demurred.

Tried before Hon. Jas. S. Clark. The complaint in this case was as follows : The Mayor and Council of the Town of Decatur, vs. James N. Power.

Tried before Hon. Luthub E. Smith. Tbis was a real 'action in the nature of ejectment brought by T. C. Clark, as administrator of A. F. Alexander, deceased, against Foster M. Kirksey, to recover certain lands. Appellant’s intestate, A. F. Alexander, was surety on the guardianship bond of one James E. Evans, against whom a judgment in favor of his wards was obtained in 1861.

Tried before Hou. Luther R. Smith. Defendant was tried and convicted on an indictment, which charged that before the finding thereof he sold vinous or spirituous liquors, without license and contrary to law, against the peace, &c. The only witness introduced for the State, testified that he had frequently bought liquor of the defendant, but always in larger quantities than a quart, and that none of it was drank upon the premises.

Tried before Hon. Henry. D. Clayton. Tbe petitioner, wbo was tbe duly elected, qualified, and . acting solicitor of Pike county,' was indicted by tbe grand jury of that county fqr carrying concealed weapons. On tbe filing of tbe indictment, tbe judge made an order suspending bim from office, and appointing another in bis stead temporarily. At a subsequent day of tbe term, petitioner made a motion to vacate and set aside tbe order suspending bim, wbicb tbe court refused.

Tided before Hon. George H. Craig. The appellant, Nelson Bradford, was indicted for an assault with intent to ravish, in the form prescribed in the Code. The indictment was demurred to on the ground that it failed to show the acts which constituted the assault, or the manner in which it was made. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant excepted.

Tried before Hon. John A. Minnis. The appellant, Ben Jackson,' and; one Jack Falkner, were indicted and convicted for larceny of cottoú, “ part of an' outstanding crop.” On the trial a witness testified, that “ about 11 o’clock at night, he and others who were guarding a crop, some three miles from the residence of the prosecutor Hails, and saw the prisoners coming along the line of the Montgomery and Eufaula railroad with something on their heads.

Tried before Hon. Henry D. Clayton. By the act of February 20th, 1875, the stealing of “any part of an outstanding crop of corn or cotton ” was made grand larceny, without regard to the value of the part stolen. Under this act the defendant was indicted for “feloniously taking and carrying away fifteen years of corn, a portion of an outstanding crop, the personal property of William Russell,” &c., and upon a verdict of guilty, sentence was pronounced upon him.

' Tried before Hon. George H. Craig. Tbe appellant was tried and convicted for borse-stealing. Tbe only evidence criminating bim, was a confession made to the owner of tbe mare, and tbe fact that tbe horse was found where be said she was' in bis confession.

Tried, before James T. May, Esq., a solicitor of the court.* Appellee was complainant in the court below, and filed this bill against her husband, Shaeffer and his wife, seeking to have certain lots in Bluffton, Chambers county, sold, to reimburse her for moneys of her statutory separate estate, which had been used by her husband, with the knowledge of appellants, in partly paying for said lots on a purchase from Shaeffer and wife by her husband, on whose failure to pay in…

Tried before Hon. P. O. Harper. Tbis was a garnishment suit commenced originally by J. C. Caldwell, a judgment creditor of J. B- Abrams, surviving partner of the firm of ,J. B. & H. S.'Abrams, against S. J. Murphy & Co., the appellees. Caldwell having died, his executors were made parties plaintiff in his stead.

Huriosco Aüstill, chancellor of the southern chancery division, presiding in the chancery court at Montgomery. The material facts on which the application is based, are fully stated in tbe opinion of the court. The chancellor having refused to take notice of, or to entertain the petition presented to him, the former decisions of this court show that mandamus is the proper remedy. — 2 Brick, Dig. 239.

. Appeal from Circuit Court of Madison. Tried before Hon. Louis Wieth.. Appellant Eurhman, for violating,an ordinance of the city of Huntsville by committing an assault and battery, November 4th, 1873, was fined twenty-five ^dollars by the mayor. Eurhman then appealed to the circuit court.

<p> Action for Failure to comply with Aiuard. </p> <p>1. Award, when inoperative. — A claimed rent of B, who claimed credit for buildings erected olí premises, and being unable to agree they submitted the matter to arbitration. An award was made that B should pay A specified amount of rent in cotton, and that A should pay B the amount expended in erecting the buildings. The award did not find what buildings were erected or the costs thereof, and left it to the parties to settle, with the understanding that “A was to pay what was right.’’ Held :</p> <p>The award was so one-sided, incomplete, and wholly inoperative as to one of the mutual demands, that no action could be maintained on it. Same; what necessary to maintenance of action on. — Where the award requires performance of a duty on each side simultaneously, one party cannot maintain an action on it against the other, without proving that he had performed, ■or had offered and was willing to perform on his part.</p> <p>3. Account; amount of; when may he proved without itemizing. — A party who gave the plaintiff an itemized statement of an account, is entitled to prove the amount of it, without specifying the items, on showing that he had no other copy or memorandum of the contents, and that plaintiff, after being duly served with subpoena duces tecum, failed to produce the account or give a copy of it.</p>

Heard before Charles Turner. The appellees filed this bill against Conoly, Reese D. Gayle, and one Randle, the case being thus : In December, 1871, Mary L. Gayle, wife of Reese D. Gayle, died intestate, while possessed of a statutory separate estate consisting of lands, leaving her husband, said Reese, and several children, the appellees, surviving her.

Tried before Hon. J. McCaleb Wiley.. Tbis was an action by tbe appellee, in bis own name, on a judgment rendered in- Georgia against tbe appellant, in favor of Hall, Moses & Co., wbicb tbe latter bad assigned to appellee for value.

<p> Action on Promissory Note. </p> <p>1. Husband; when may maintain action on notepaydble to'wife. — A complaint declaring in the name of the husband alone, on a promissory'note payable to a person averred to be his wife, and alleging that the note was given for rent of lands of her statutory estate, is not demurrable because it does not allege that he was the owner of it; nor on the ground that the action should have been brought in the name of the wife.</p> <p>3. Same. — The fact that the husband was present at the execution of a note, given for rent of lands of the wife’s statutory estate, and directed it to be made payable to the wife, without more, is not sufficient to show a gift to the wife, and thereby defeat a right of action in him alone.</p>

<p>Bill in Equity by Personal Representative to set aside Conveyance made by the Intestate, &c.</p> <p>1. Bill; when without equity. — A bill filed by an administrator, to avoid a voluntary conveyance made by the intestate, because of prejudice to creditors whose debts existed when it was made, is without equity. Such a deed, is valid as to the parties to it; and the administrator succeeds only to such rights as his intestate had.</p>

This was an application for mandamus to compel tbe judge of tbe circuit court of Marengo to fix the amount of a bond to operate a supersedeas of a judgment for recovery of lands, The facts are fully set forth in the opinion.

<p> Bill in Equity to Enforce Vendor’s Lien. </p> <p>Bill to enforce vendor’s lien; when want of title no answer to. — It is no answer to a bill by"an administrator to enforce the vendor’s lien on lands of his intestate, sold under a decree of the probate court, that he and the purchaser (there being no warranty or false representation inducing the purchase) labored under the common mistake that the intestate had title to all the land sold; whereas, in fact, a part of it belonged to third persons, who had ejected the purchaser, for the value of which a rebate of purchase money is claimed. The maxim, caveat emptor, applies with full force to such a sale.</p>

M. J. Saeeold. The appellees, Hurt, Corbin and Atkins, commenced suit against the appellant, “B. E. Perry,” by attachment in a justice’s court.

Appellee, who was surety on the bond of appellant as general administrator of Dallas county, filed his petition asking to be relieved as such surety, and that the appellant be required to give a new bond, &c. On the hearing of the petition, the probate judge ordered the appellant to give a new bond in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, within sixteen days, and on failure to do so, that he .be removed.

Ahpeal from Circuit Court of Dale. Tried before Hon. H. D. Clayton.

Heard before Hon. B! B. McCraw. Tbe appellant, Mary L. Bea, filed this bill against Longstreet & Sedgwick, and others of ber husband’s creditors, wbo, under attachments against bis estate, had levied on, and were proceeding to sell her lands.

<p> Petition far Mandamus. </p> <p>1. iSumputry proceedings against defaulting tax coUe'clors, &c.; what provisions of Code applicable ¿o. — Sections 3059 and 3060 of theBevised Code, authorizing summary judgments against defaulting tax collectors and probate judges, are not the only provisions governing such proceedings, but must be construed in connection with § 3026 of the first part of the chapter relating to “summary judgments,’’ of which sections 3059 and 3060 form a part.</p> <p>2. Same; what wiU not operate a discontinuance of. — These sections, thus construed, authorize judgment against the parties served, although the principal and other sureties are not served; and neither a discontinuance as to those not served, nor an order abating the suit as to a party who died after service, will work a discontinuance of the entire proceeding.</p>

Tried before Hon. James Q. Smith. This was a real action in the nature of ejectment, brought by Josiab Morris, on May 4th, 1872, against A. Gerald, F. Tyler, Eugene Beebe and Ferrie Henshaw, to recover possession of certain premises in the city of Montgomery, known as the “ Montgomery Stables,” together with damages for their detention. The first count of the complaint is in the exact language of the form for such action, prescribed in the Bevised Code.

Tried, before Hon. M. J. Saeeold. This was a real action under tbe Code, in wbicb tbe appellants were plaintiffs, and tbe parties respectively deduced… Held: unless the deed contained apt and proper words showing that B intended to release, and did thereby release, his mortgage, and then the grantee would not acquire any title from B, but simply acquire the fee simple title discharged of the lien of the mortgage. But, in the ease at bar, the grantee is not a third person.

Tried before Hon. M. J. Saeeold. This was a real action in tbe nature of ejectment by appellant, Childress, against Monette and Boggs, the appellees, to recover a tract of land.

Heard before Hon. H. Austell. ? This cause was before the court at its June term, 1874, and is reported Reid v. Moulton, in the 51st volume of Alabama Reports,' page 255. The case is so fully reported there that it is unnecessary here to give more than a brief synopsis. Moulton was mayor of the city of Mobile, entitled under its charter to hold until his successor was elected and qualified.

Tried, before Hon. M. J. Saeeold. William R. King Beck brought his action of trover against Nelson, as administrator, with the will annexed, of Alanson Saltmarsh, for the conversion of fifteen slaves… Held: a conversion.- — Dunsboro v. Hardy, 4 Dev. (N. C.) 572.

Heard before Hou. A. W. Dillard. This bill was filed by the beirs at law of Nancy Thompson, by next friend, Busb, against Edward Rencber, formerly administrator of ber estate, A. R. Davis, administrator de bonis non, and tbe sureties upon his official bond, James W. Baird and W. E. Karsner, praying an account and settlement of Davis’ administration, and for a decree against his sureties, and discovery, &c.; and also to declare and enforce a vendor’s lien on certain lots in…

This ease having been brought to this court by appeal, the appellees moved to dismiss it, on the ground that the appellant, before taking his appeal, had coerced or received satisfaction of the judgment appealed from. The motion was resisted and both sides filed affidavits, the substance of which is stated in the opinion.

Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham. The original bill in this cause was filed by Spencer Moore against George W. Avis, to enforce a vendor’s lien on a tract of land situate in Lee county, known as the southeast quarter of section 18, township 19, range 24.

Heard before Hon. Charles Turner. This was a bill in equity, filed on tbe 26th day of Eebruary, 1873, by John Moore, administrator of John W. Montague, deceased, who was a legatee under the will of Richard Montague, deceased, against Edward A. Blount, executor of the last will and testament of said Richard; Mary A. Cocke, who purchased lands belonging to said testator from the executor, and received his conveyance therefor, and Henry Hall and Elsie Cocke, who were in…

Tried before Hon. J. Q. Smith. This was an action of trover, brought by B. H. Crosswell, against Lehman, Durr & Co., warehousemen, to recover damages for the conversion of nine bales of cotton by the latter. The cotton in controversy was the property of Pierce, Nummy & Co., who cultivated the plantation on which it was raised.- Nummy & Co., a partnership in other matters, constituted one member of the firm and Pierce the other.

Heard before Hon. Charles Turner. The original bill in this cause was filed on the 5th of July, 1872, by B. M. Nelson, as administrator, with the will annexed, of Alanson Saltmarsh, deceased, against William M. Boynton, Mary A. Saltmarsh, and others, alleged to have been former executors of said estate, and their sureties, and sought to recover unadministered assets, and to compel an account, and a settlement of their trust with him; it being alleged that the defendants had…

Dallas. Tried before Hon. M. J. Saeeold. Cade, the appellee, brought this action against Woolsey, the appellant, to recover $711 04, the amount of an account stated on the 29th day of February, 1868, between one Jemison, and Woolsey, Walker & Co., a mercantile firm of which Woolsey was then a member, which indebtedness had been transferred to plaintiff.

Heard before Hon. Adam C. Feldeb. _ ■ _ Harbin, tbe appellant, filed this bill as administrator of J. Y. Clond, deceased, against O. R. Bell, guardian of bis intestate, and one Daniel, surety upon bis bond, to compel a settlement of tbe guardianship in tbe chancery court, and to charge him as for a devastavit for tbe collection of certain debts, due tbe ward, in Confederate money, and for general relief.

Tried before P. T. Sayre, Esq., an attorney of tbe court, selected by tbe parties on account of tbe incompetency of tbe presiding judge.

Heard before Hon. Charles Turner. The opinion states the case. It is not important that the statute says that the lien on the property of the tax collector shall be “for the amount of any judgment which may be rendered against him in his official capacity;” for, the judgment is only the mode of ascertaining the amount of the default — nothing more; the hen existed before the recovery of the judgment.

Tried before Hon. W. B. Wood. The opinion states the case. The only question raised in Bibb v. Reid, 3 Ala. 88, was whether or not a bond could be delivered as an escrow to a joint obligor, the counsel for the appellant invoking the old common law doctrine that an escrow, to be good, must be delivered to a stranger; but the court took the more modern view that it could be delivered to a co-obligor as an escrow.

Atpeal from Circuit Court of Conecuh. Tried before Hon. P. O. Harper.

Tried before Hon. Jas. Q. Smith. The appellant, Ellen R. Grigg, as administratrix of F. T. Grigg, commenced suit in June, 1873, by attachment against the appellee, Gilmer, to recover damages of the latter for the wrongful killing of her intestate. The attachment was sued out on the ground that the defendant “has absconded,” and was levied on certain lands belonging to him, and at the December term of that year an order of publication was made.

Heard, before Hon. B. B. McCraw. This was a bill in equity filed by tbe appellees, Ann Jordan and Mary Jordan, a minor, by said Ann as nest Mend, against William Gamble, tbe appellant, on tbe 25tb of June, 1872, seeking to vacate appellant’s final settlement, made in tbe probate court on tbe 14tb day of March, 1865, of bis administration of tbe estate of William B. Jordan, deceased, of whom appellees were tbe only heirs and distributees, and to require him to settle tbe…

Tried before Hon. M. J. Saeeold. Tbe appellant, Nelson, wbo was then special administrator of tbe estate of Alanson Saltmarsb, deceased, commenced tbis suit by attachment, in tbe circuit court, against tbe appellee, Webb.

<p>Appeal from Lee Chancery Court.</p> <p>Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham.</p> <p>The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

Tried before Hon. M. J. Saeeold. Tbe Alabama Conference, tbe appellant, having recovered judgment in tbe circuit court of Dallas, on tbe 13th day of June, 1867, against J. J. Head for over two thousand dollars, it, in tbe year 1871, sued out garnishments against Yaughan and Cotton, who were bis debtors. They, answered admitting indebtedness, aggregating about four hundred dollars, and at tbe spring term, 1873, on motion of Head, were discharged.

Tried before Hon. J. McCaleb Wilex. Tbe appellees, Nall & Duxberry, brought this action against tbe appellant, Martin E. Berry, in tbe circuit court of Pike county, on tbe 21st day of November, 1865, to recover damages of tbe latter for breach of a contract to deliver cotton.

Heard before Hon. John Elliott. Tbe appellee, Daughdrill, filed this bill on tbe equity side of the circuit court in May, 1872, against Virginia Pearce and J. H. Pearce, ber husband, to enforce a vendor’s lien on certain lots of land in tbe city of Mobile.

Tried before Hon. Luther R. Smith. The appellee, Jones, as surviving partner of the firm of J. A. Winston & Co., brought this action against the appellant as administrator of Thompson Crawford, deceased, to recover rent for a half interest in the “Pickensville Ferry,” which the intestate rented from said firm in his fife time.

Heard before Hon. H. Austill. This was an appeal by Samuel Bard, from an order denying a receiver over, the material and business of the “Alabama State Journal” newspaper, pending a suit by Bard,, against Thos. C. Bingham, his copartner in the business, for a dissolution of the partnership and for a settlement and dissolution of its affairs.

Heard before Hon. A. W. Dillard. The appellee, Rhoda Rivers, filed this bill against Carleton and others, seeking, in effect, to fasten a resulting trust on certain lands which her deceased husband had purchased, taking a conveyance direct to himself; the purchase money of which, she alleged, he paid with moneys of her separate estate.

Tried before Hon. Gr. H. Craig. The “ Marion Savings Bank,” an association organized under the provisions of the Code upon free banking, (Part 2, Title 1, Chap. 1, §§ 1644 et seq. as amended,) commenced this suit against the appellee to recover the amount of a bill of exchange, dated November 10th, 1873, drawn by him on and accepted by John Walthall, and payable to T. M. Walthall sixty days thereafter at the Marion Savings Bank, and by Mm endorsed to plaintiff. . .

Appéad from Limestone Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. R. S. Watkins. This was a bill in equity, filed by Ann C. Edwards and her husband, against Mary P. Bibb individually, and as administratrix of the estate of David Porter Bibb, deceased, and certain of his heirs at law, seeking to have dower allotted to her in certain lands in their possession.

<p> Bill in Equity to Recover Over-payment, &c. </p> <p>1. Demurrer; what equivalent to recital overruling. —Where a cause submitted on “bill and answer, and pleadings and proof,” and the only pleading, other than the bill and answer, was the demurrer incorporated in the answer, the demurrer is included in the submission ; and if the decree rendered awards full relief to complainant, the demurrer was of necessity overruled.</p> <p>2. Same; amendment, when presumed properly made. — In this state of the record, if the court, at a subsequent term, for the purpose of making the record speak the truth, allows an amendment so as to show that the cause was ‘ ‘ submitted for hearing on demurrer, as well as on bill, answer and proof, and that the demurrer was overruled, ’’and the record does not disclose the evidence upon which the amendment was allowed, it must be presumed that there was proper and sufficient evidence to authorize it. Whether this be so or not, only those prejudiced by the allowance of the amendment can complain of it.</p> <p>3. Equity; what not sufficient to give jurisdiction. — The general rule is that a court of equity will not take jurisdiction, when there is a clear, complete and adequate remedy at law. The mere intervention of fraud, no discovery or any special equitable relief being sought, will not authorize a court of chancery to grant relief, or entertain concurrent jurisdiction with the court,of law, in cases cognizable at law.</p> <p>I. Same. — When one person, on assuming the debt of another, a purely legal demand, agreed to make a deduction to the amount the debt was lessened by comj>romise with third persons, and on settling -with the original debtor computed and was allowed usurious interest, and by fraudulent misrepresentations that he had obtained no such reduction, induced the debtor to pay a much larger sum than was really due, the debtor has a complete and adequate remedy by action at law, for money had and received, to recover the overpayment.</p>

Heard before Hon. B. B. McCraw. The original bill in this cause was filed, by the appellant, Hart, against appellee, Emeline Clark, to enjoin the collection of a judgment, which the latter had obtained against him. ' According to its statements, one John W. Clarke, husband of said Emeline, was complainant’s partner in the “ warehouse business ” in-the city of Eufaula, the partnership owning a negro man and dray and mules.

Heard before Hon. B. B. MoGraW. Tbis is an appeal from a decree of tbe chancery court dismissing a bill filed by appellants against tbe appellee, tbe Life Association of the South, for want of equity, and dissolving an injunction, restraining it from coercing satisfaction of execution on a judgment it had obtained against Hart, one of the appellants.

Heard before Hon. H. Austill. This was a bill in equity filed by the appellant, The Alabama Gold Life Insurance Company, a domestic corporation carrying on the business of life insurance, against the appellee, Lott, tax collector, to enjoin the collection of certain taxes. The chancellor dismissed the bill on demurrer, and this decree is now assigned, among other things, for error.

Heard before Hon. Charles Turner. The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, Lucy M. Ferguson, against Squire Lowery, her former guardian, and his sureties, to annul and cancel a release executed by her, and to compel a settlement of his guardianship in the chancery' court. The main facts of the case are as follows : In the early part of the year 1857, Lowery was appointed and qualified as guardian of complainant.

Tried before Hon. J. E. Cobb. The appellant, Pet. Levison, was jointly indicted, together witb Ered. Baldwin, Douglas Brumley and Harry Baldwin, for murdering Philip B. Baldwin by administering poison to bim. A not pros, was entered as to tbe defendants Brumley and Harry Baldwin, and Ered. Baldwin fled before trial. Tbe appellant was tried at tbe fall term, 1875, of the circuit court, upon issue joined upon plea of not guilty.

This is an appeal by appellant, Levert, from an order of the probate court rejecting and denying a claim held by her against the insolvent estate of John Bead, deceased. Letters testamentary were granted to John B. Bead upon the estate of the deceased on the 26th day of April, 1861.

Heard before Hon. H. Austill. The bill in this case was filed by the appellees, Laura Kelley and her husband, against the appellant, Malone, who was trustee for said Laura under the will of her father, Drury Malone, deceased, for an account and settlement of his trust, and to vacate and annul a release she had given Malone.

Heard before Hon. Charles Turner. This is an appeal from a decree sustaining a demurrer of John T. Heflin, as administrator of tbe estate of Edward Gantt, deceased, to tbe bill of complainant filed against bim in tbe court below by Richard K. Harrison and others.

Heard before Hon. H. C. Speake. This is an appeal under section 3439 of the Eevised Code, from an order of tbe chancellor dissolving a preliminary injunction, granted in the cause on filing the amended bill, upon the denials in the answers of the respondents.

Tbis was an application by Thomas A. Walker for mandamus to compel the judge of the 10th judicial circuit (Hon. John Henderson) to vacate and set aside a supersedeas ordered by him on the petition of William Curry, praying a supersedeas and for rehearing under the statute, in the case of Thomas A. Walker v. William Curry and Wallcer Curry, wherein said Walker had recovered judgment in the Circuit Court of Talladega against the defendants, for $811.00 and costs, upon a…

James Q. Smith. Tbe appellants, Thomas M. Barnett, Nicholas D. Barnett and B. H. Micou, were, indicted, under section 3643 of the Revised Code, at the fall term, 1873, of the circuit court of Elmore, for emitting change bills to circulate as money, and upon affidavit as to local prejudice, the trial was transferred to Montgomery county. Tbe indictment contained three counts.

Heard before Hon. B. B. McCraw. This was a bill in equity, filed by the appellee, Beese, to enforce the vendor’s lien upon a tract of land situate_ in Chambers county. There was a decree, on the final hearing on the pleadings and proof, granting the relief prayed; hence this appeal. Erwin, in his answer, set up by way of plea that he was a resident of Lee county, Alabama, and the bill should have been filed against him in that county.

• This was au appeal by tbe appellant, W. B. Seawell, from a decree rendered ’on final settlement of his administration of the estate of Horace B. Buckley, deceased. Horace Buckley died iu 1864, and letters of administration were granted by tbe probate court of Mobile to W. W. Buckley. Said W. W. having died without making settlement, Joseph J. T. Wilson succeeded him in the administration, Seawell becoming one of bis sureties.

Heard before Hon.--. The record in this case never cbme into the reporter’s hands; and hence he is unable to give any further statement of facts than appears in the opinion.

This was an information, filed in the supreme court, by the attorney general against Charles W. Buckley, judge of the probate court of Montgomery county,' praying his impeachment and removal from office, under the provisions of “ an act to provide for the impeachment and removal from office of the officers mentioned in section 2 and section 3 of article vii of the Constitution of Alabama,” approved March 7th, 1876.

Heard before Hon. A. W. Dillard. The appellee, Thomas J. Foster, as a special administrator of the estate of Edwin A. Glover, deceased, filed this bill on the 26th day of October, 1875, against the “Briarfield Iron Works Company,” a domestic corporation, John F. Walton, F. S. Lyon, B. W. Whitfield, D. F. Prout, J. F. Griffin, and P. J. Glover, of Marengo county; William White, William B. and Bichard Inge, as executors of John Collins, deceased, W. H. Boss, all residents of…

The record does not give the name of the presiding judge. The suit was commenced by appellant against tbe appellee, to recover damages for tbe loss of a horse, tbe injury to another and a buggy, caused by tbe unskillful and negligent manner in which tbe superintendent of bard labor for tbe county, bad repaired a bridge, part of a public highway, which the plaintiff was crossing, when tbe loss and injury was sustained.

Tried before Hon. Luther R. Smith. This was a trial of the right of property between Wilder & Co., plaintiffs and appellants, and Mrs. E. R. Abernethy, claimant and appellee. The evidence disclosed the following facts: Wilder & Co. were judgment creditors of the husband, on a debt contracted by a firm, of which he was a member, which had ceased to do business. Afterwards, appellee’s father gave to B. Gr.

Heard before Hon. Charles Turner. These are cross appeals from a decree of the chancery court'of Dallas, in a cause wherein the appellant Eaulling was complainant, and the administrators of A. M. Creagh, deceased, and F. S. Lyon, were respondents. The original bill was filed in the chancery court of Wilcox on the 28th day of January, 1857, and was several times amended.

This was an appeal by Samuel B. M. Harwood, from a decree rendered by the probate court on his final settlement, as administrator cum testamento annexo of the estate of Elizabeth D. Harwood, on the 14th day of September, 1874. His settlement was contested by the heirs and legatees. Samuel B., the appellant, had been executor of his father, ' S. M. Harwood, deceased, and said Elizabeth was his mother.

Tried before Hon. W. S. Mudd. This was an action of trover by Somerville & McEacMn, the appellees, against E. & J. McLester, the appellants, to recover damages for the conversion of certain corn and cotton. Both parties deduced title from Caldwell & Durrett, under written instruments executed by them under the following circumstances: Caldwell & Durrett were partners, engaged in the business of planting, in Tuskaloosa county, during the years 1870,1871 and 1872.

Heard before the Hon. H. C. Speake. The original and amended bills in this cause were filed by the appellant, George B. Wilkinson, as administrator of William W. Matthews, deceased, against ■ Luke Matthews and Bradley, Wilson & Co., the appellees, to enforce a vendor’s lien on certain lands sold by appellant’s intestate to said Luke, and for a personal decree against said Luke and Bradley, Wilson & Co., for any balance due, after exhausting the lands, upon said Luke’s bill…

Heard before Hon. Charles Turner. The original bill, in this cause, was filed on the 19tb of September, 1874, by James E. Webb, as administrator of Lucy T. Sbeppard, deceased, against Waller, as personal representative of Catherine Drake and William B. Drake; Garrett, as administrator de bonis non of Alpheus Drake, deceased ; Ida B. Casey, a minor; Mirian French and her husband, W. H. Drake, Wm. R. Lanier, a minor; and the Continental Life Insurance Company, of New York.