Volume 65 — Alabama Reports

Heard before the Hon. H. Austill. The bill in this case was filed on the 4th January, 1871, by John W. Hughes, Mason Harwell, and Y. S.… Held: was as follows : “ I give /unto Dr. Thomas Taylor, the son of my deceased wife, in trust for Mary Charles and William Charles, children of Robert Charles, now deceased, and Fanny Charles, the daughter of my said deceased wife, my plantation on the Tallapoosa river, known as my lower plantation on the said river, together with all the…

Appeals from the Probate Court of Montgomery. In the matter of the final settlement of the accounts and vouchers of Mrs. Harriet Billingslea, as administratrix (and H. C. Billingslea, ber husband, as administrator in right of his wife) of the estate of Robert J. Glenn, deceased, who was the husband of Mrs. Billingslea at the time of his death.

Heard before the Hon. H. C. Speake. The bill in this case was filed on the 7th February, 1878, by F. P. Ward, as the administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed of Thomas Fearn, deceased, against the administrator of tbe estate of Robert Eearn,.deceased, together with his widow (Eliza Lee Eearn), his infant daughter (Kate Coles Eearn), and James I. Donegan.

Heard before the Hon. H. Austill. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th January, 1877, by W. T. Hatchett, as the administrator of… Held: that Tillman was really the complainant in the suit, and was attempting to collect a second time a debt which Berney had already paid in good faith ; and that the complainant could not have any relief on account of the alleged mistake of fact in the compromise, since the mistake, if proved, was unilateral only, and Berney could not,…

Heard before the Hon. H. C. Speake. The original bill in this case was filed on the 26th April, 1875, by Mrs. Mary A. Elledge, the wife of' Joseph L. Elledge, against William H. Walker; and sought to enjoin an action at law, which said Walker had instituted against her to recover the possession of a tract of land, particularly described in the bill.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by William E. Wailes, against Joseph G. Neal; and was founded on the defendant’s promissory note for $203.98, dated July 11th, 1878, and payable on the 1st day of December, 1878, to the plaintiff or order. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and payment; and issue seems to have been joined on both of these pleas.

Tried before the Hon. Wm. S. Mudd. This action was brought by David H. Walker, against Thomas Nunnley and Simpson Clayton, tenants in possession, to recover the possession of a tract of land, with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 28th August, 1872.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Goldthwaite, Rice & Semple, suing as late partners, together with Mary D. Witter, against Joseph' R. Dudley; was commenced on the 5th April, 1878, and was founded on defendant’s promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “On the first day of November, 1875,1 promise to pay Mary D. Witter the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, for rent of the plantation known as the ‘ Swamp Place’ of the late John Dudley,…

<p> Action by Assignee, on Written Contract for Payment of Cotton etc., as Pent. </p> <p>1. Assignment of contract; when assignee may sue. — The assignee of a contract which is assignable (Code, § 2099), and which has been assigned to him by indorsement, may sue in his own name ; and each successive assignee by indorsement may sue in his own name; and when there is an indorsement in blank, by one having the legal title, any subsequent holder may fill it up, and maintain an action in his own name.</p>

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. Tbis action was brought by Harman C. Williams, against the appellant, a corporation chartered under the laws of Alabama, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful and negligent act of the defendant’s agents and servants in killing a mule belonging to plaintiff.

Tried before the Hon. W. B. Wood. The record in this case shows that, on the 20th February, 1873, James Brock, the appellant, instituted an action, in the Circuit Court of Morgan county, against the South and North Alabama Bailroad Company, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by his minor son while in the employment of said corporation; that the cause was transferred, by agreement of counsel, to the Circuit Court of Limestone for trial, and was there continued…

Heard before the Hon. H. Austill. The bill in this case was filed on the 13th February, 1878, in the name of the State of Alabama, “ and township fourteen, range thirteen, in said county of Lowndes, suing for use of said township,” against Julius T. Rice and wife, Francis Gordon, Daniel W. Rast, and the heirs of Russell P. McCord, deceased; and sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain lands therein particularly described.

Tried before tbe Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Charles J. Watson against Willis Brewer, and was commenced on the 3d of April, 1879. The complaint was substantially as follows: 1.

In the matter of the estate of Isham Pettis, deceased, on the application of Leroy W. Davis, the administrator, for an order to sell lands for the payment of debts. The only matters here assigned as error relate to the exclusion of evidence ■offered by the administrator, who is now the appellant; and the opinion of the court states all the material facts.

Appeab from the Circuit Court of Madison. Tried before the Hon. Louis Wyeth. This was an application, by petition under oath, for a rehearing after final judgment at law, under the provisions of the statute. — Code, §§ 3161 et seq. The application was made by Josiah Springer, as the agent of Frank M. Blood, and was presented to Judge Wyeth, at chambers, on the 25th June, 1878.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith.' This action was brought by W. W. McGar' against James B. Adams, and was commenced on the 1st April, 1879. The complaint contained a single count, claiming $300 for money had and received. The cause was tried on issue joined, and a verdict was rendered for the defendant.

In the matter of the insolvent estate of Munford D. Robinson, deceased, on final settlement of the accounts of the administrator, Eli T. Robinson. The decedent died in August, or September, 1876, never having married, and leaving his surviving brothers and sister, Eli T. and J. W. Robinson and Mrs. Fanny Hunter, as his heirs at law.

Tried before the Hon. John K. Henry. This action was brought by A. Jay against the appellant, to recover the value of services rendered by the plaintiff, as a physician and surgeon, to one Richardson, a negro man, who was badly injured by the defendant’s cars while in its service and employment, and whose leg was amputated in consequence of the injuries which he received.

From the Circuit Court of Elmore. Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith.

Tried before an attorney of the court (Code, § 661), on account of the disqualification of the presiding judge.

<p> Attachment against Tenant's Crop, for Advances. </p> <p>1. Advances to make crop; statutory lien. — A person who makes advances to another, whether in horses, mules, provisions, &c., or in money to purchase the same, to enable him to make a crop, the statutory regulations being complied with (Code, §§ 3286-88), has a lien on the stock so provided or bought, and on the crop raised ; which lien has a preference over all cither liens on the crop, except the landlord’s lien for rent and advances.</p> <p>2. Same; attachment to enforce lien. — The remedy by attachment, to enforce the statutory lien for such 'advances, is subject to the same limitations and restrictions that are imposed on the landlord, and can only be issued upon an affidavit which, when fairly construed, discloses the existence of a particular contract within the terms of the statute, and a state of facts which authorizes the issue of the writ upon that contract.</p> <p>3. Affidavit for attachment. — An affidavit which states that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiffs in a specified sum, “ for advances made to him to make a crop in said county for the year 1878, and that he has removed a part of the crop made by him, on which the lien was given, without the consent of said plaintiffs,” does not show a substantial compliance with the requisitions of the statute, and is fatally defective.</p> <p>i. Amendment of affidavit. — Defects of form in the affidavit, as under the general attachment law(Oode, §3315), are amendable, but defects of substance are incurable.</p> <p>5. Same; what are matters of substance. — The matters of substance, which must be stated or shown in such affidavit, are, that advances were made in horses, mules, oxen, necessary provisions, or farming tools and implements, or in money to purchase the same, the amount being stated, to enable the defendant to make a crop ; that a written note or obligation was taken, declaring that such advances were made bona fide for the purpose of enabling the defendant to make a crop, and that without them it would not be in his power to procure the necessary teams, provisions, &c., to make a orop ; also, the registration of the writing, as required by the statute, and the existence of one of the causes for which an attachment may be sued out.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. James E. Cobb.</p>

Heard before the Hon. H. Austill. The original bill in this case was filed on the 24th December, 1874, by Mrs. Maria Y. Beese, the wife of Lewis C. Beese, and their two infant children, against Mrs.… Held: on final hearing, that the amendment made a new case, and ought not to have been allowed, if objection had been made to it; and that the evidence failed to establish it.

Tried before tbe Hon. John A. Minnis. This case originated in a petition filed by Jackson county,, a corporation under tbe statute (Code, § 815), addressed to Hon. Willis Brewer, then State auditor, asking him to certify to the county assessor of said county, from the records and data in bis office, tbe number of miles of railroad, main track and side-tracks, belonging to tbe Memphis and Charleston Bailroad Company, wbicb were liable to taxation for county purposes in said…

Tried before the Hon. John A. Minnis. This action was brought by William Porter, a non-resident of the State, against James Q. Smith, to recover money alleged to have been collected by the defendant, as plaintiff’s attorney, and not paid over on demand; and was commenced on the 14th September, 1876. The complaint contained only the common money counts, each claiming money alleged to be due on the 9th November, 1871.

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

Appeals from the Chancery Court at Montgomery. Heard before tbe Hon. H. Austill. These four cases were closely connected, and originated in the same state of facts. Geo.

Heard before the Hon. A. W. Dillard. The bill in this case was filed on the 19th May, 1876, by Caswell Eads, against Thomas J. Carver and liis wife, Ulrica E. Carver; and sought to enforce a charge in the nature of a vendor’s lien, on a tract of land which had been sold and conveyed to Mrs. Carver by B. F. Carver, who was the brother of said Thomas J. The debt sought to be enforced by the bill was due and owing to the complainant from said B. F. Carver, and a promise to pay…

Tried before tbe Hon. James Q. Smith.' — Tbe main and controlling purpose of the statute having been declared unconstitutional in… Held: such law is not unconstitutional, and does not work unequally or partially in the actual suit between them ; because, had there been another suit, in which the baker were plaintiff, he could recover no costs of the blacksmith, though the latter might recover of him. ” Under the operation of this statute, justice is not administered “…

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

<p> Statutory Beal Action in nature of Ejectment. </p> <p>1. What title will support action. — In ejectment, or the corresponding statutory action, the plaintiff may, if not barred by the statute of limitations, recover against a stranger, or one showing no title, on proof of prior possession, under color of title.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Geo. H. Craig. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in a stock of goods and merchandise, on which an attachment was levied on the 5th December, 1878, at the suit of Maas & Block, against A. Steiner, and to which a claim was interposed by Block Brothers & Go., the appellants ; affidavit of ownership being made, and bond given for a trial of the right of property, under the provisions of the statute.

Heard before the Hon. A. W. Dillard. The bill in this case was filed on the 5 th December, 1871, by Mrs. Mary B. Hill, the widow of Thomas… Held: that the decree rendered by Chancellor John was invalid ; that Mrs. Hill’s interest in the lands was subject to sale under execution ; that Annie B. Hill and the defendant were tenants in common of the land; that she was entitled to receive from him, during his possession, one-half of the rents and profits of the lands, “ and also…

Tried, before the Hon. Luther R. Smith. This action was brought by Cynthia 0. Jeter, against John A. Minnieee, and was commenced by original attachment, sued out on the 23d October, 1874.

Tried before tbe Hon. Geo. H. Craig. This action was brought by Joseph C. Hungerford, Joseph Neal, Abe Bencher, Joseph B. Bush, and Bobert H. Harper, against William D. Moore ; and was commenced on tbe 11th November, 1878.

'Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wilcox. Tried before Hon. John 3L Henry. ■ The appellee in this case, Albert D. Bloch, was arrested under a warrant issued by the intendant of the town of Camden, charged with the violation of a municipal ordinance ; and was fined $2.50, besides costs, amounting in all to $10.75.

Heard before tbe Hon. A. W. Dillard. The bill in this case was filed on tbe 24th January, 1876, by Thomas Eatman, as the administrator of the estate of Tilman Hicks, deceased, against Charles M. B. Means, Newton C. Pyles, and Isabella 0.

Heard before the Hon. A. W. Dillard. The bill in this case was filed on the 20th April, 1880, by Allen 0. Eubank and others, heirs-at-law and distributees of the estate of John M. Eubank, deceased, against Thomas C. Clark, as the administrator of said estate, and several other persons ; and sought to remove the settlement of said estate, which had been regularly reported and declared insolvent, into said court.

Heard before the Hon. A. W. Dillard. The bill in this case was filed on the 22d June, 1876, by Thomas W. Sims, against I. James Lee and his… Held: on final hearing on pleadings and proof, that the complainant was not entitled to any relief as to the larger tract of land, which Mrs. Lee had inherited from her father, but that the smaller tract, called the “Jenkins tract,” was held under the terms of the compromise, and was subject to the debt secured by the deed of trust.

<p> Motion to Dismiss Appeal, for toantof Security for Costs. </p> <p>X. Appeal by married woman, without security for costs. — Tbe statute which authorizes an appeal by a married woman, without giving security for tbe costs, from auy judgment or decree “ subjecting to sale her separate estate, or any part thereof” (Code, § 3930), does not embrace a decree dismissing a bill filed by a married woman, by which she sought to fasten a trust on lands, the legal title to which was taken by the husband iu his own name, on the ground that her funds were used in paying the purchase-money.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Wm. L. Whitlock. This action was brought by George E. Coats, against Thomas S. Rees, to recover damages for the conversion of three bales of cotton ; and was commenced on the 20th September, 1877. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a special plea of estoppel, which it is not necessary to notice.

Tried before the Hon. John Henderson. This action was brought by Charles H. George, against William Baucum and William H. Jenkins, to recover the possession of a tract of land, which was described in the complaint as the “ west half of the south-east quarter of section thirty-four (34), -township twenty (20), range six (6) east, ” together with damages for its detention ; and was commenced in July, 1874.

Tried before tbe Hon. H. D. Clayton. This action was brought by Franklin O. Day, “ doing business under tbe firm name of Derby & Day, ” against William N. Thompson’; and was commenced on the 7th April, 1879.

Heard before the Hon. H. Austill. The original bill in this case was filed on the 14ih May, 1877, by William March, against Mrs. Livia W. England and her children ; and sought to quiet the complainant’s title to certain lands, of which he was in possession, and which were sold and conveyed to him by W. D. Talbot and wife, by deed dated the 24th April, 1876.

Tried before the Hon. John K. Henry. This action was brought by David Buell, against Vi A. T. Underwood and Henry Brunson, to recover t,he possession of a tract of land, which was particularly described in the complaint ; and was commenced on the 13th February, 1880.

Tried before tbe Hon. H. D. Clayton. This action was brought by John T. Ragan and James T. Houston, against William J. Cargile, to reqgver the possession of a certain tract of land, particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 31st July, 1878.

Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith. This action was brought by Erank Boykin, against Levi T. Smith, to recover an undivided one-eleventh part of a certain tract of land containing forty acres, particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 28th September, 1878.

Tried before the Hon. Wh. L. Whitlock. This action was brought by the administrator of the estate of Mrs. Elizabeth G. Jordan, deceased, against David C. Jordan, John Jordan, Arethusa A. Jordan, and Alexander Jordan, who were children of said decedent; sought to recover damages for the defendants’ conversion of various articles^ of personal property, particularly described in the complaint, consisting of cattle, horses and mules, corn, oats and wheat, wagons, plows and…

Tried before the Hon. John Henderson. This action was brought by R. S. Thornton, against J. R. Ritch and T. L. Bryant; and was commenced by attachment against the defendants’ crop, raised on lands rented to them by the plaintiff during the year 1878. The attachment was sued out on the 28th October, 1878, on the ground that the defendants had removed a portion of the crop from the rented premises, without the landlord’s permission, and without paying the rent due for the year.

Tried before the Hon. John K. Henry. This action was brought by Benjamin F. Blackman, Green W. Blackman, and John 0. Blackman, against Thomas A. Collier, to recover the price of certain machinery, alleged to have been sold by plaintiffs to defendant in January, 1878; and was commenced on the 7th August, 1879.

Tried before the Hon. Geo. H. Craig. Tbis action was brought by Norman Webb, the appellant,' against Carlisle, Jones & Go. as partners, tenants in possession, to rec '-ver the possession of a bouse and lot in the city of Selma, with damages for its detention after demand; and was commenced before a justice of the peace, on tbe 19th March, 1878..

Heard before the Hon. H. Austell. The original bill in this case was filed on the 14th April, 1873, by Albert G. McGehee, against Lehman, Durr & Co., as partners, a mercantile firm doing business in the city of Montgomery; and sought an account of the transactions between the parties for a series of years, particularly in connection with a mortgage which the complainant had given to secure his indebtedness to the defendants, and equitable relief against alleged usurious…

Heard before the Hon. H. C. S.peake. The bill in this case was filed on the 21st October, 1879, by the executors and executrix of the last will and testament of William D. Hollingsworth, deceased, against the several legatees and devisees therein named; and sought a judicial construction of the will, and the instructions of the court for the guidance of the complainants in the discharge of the duties imposed on them by the will.

Heard before the Hon. H. Austill. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th August, 1879, by Frank Boykin, against the personal representative and heirs-at-law of Ben. H. Elsberry, deceased; and sought the foreclosure of a mortgage, a copy of which was made an exhibit to the bill, in the following words : “ State of Alabama, Lowndes County.

Heard before the Hon. Charles Turner. The original bill in this case was filed on the 6th August, 1877, by William H. Eellows, as the administrator de bonis non of the estate of Thornton B. Goldsby, deceased, John H. Chapman, John E- Blevins, and others, creditors of Ben.

Heard before the Hon. Charles Turner. The original bill in this case was filed on the 30th October, 1874, by the Mobile Life Insurance Company, a domestic corporation, against Mrs. Cynthia Ann… Held: that the bill was without equity; and he therefore rendered a decree, dissolving the temporary injunction, and dismissing the bill.

Tried before the Hon. John Henderson. This action was brought by Benjamin A. Clements, against Owen Taylor, to recover the possession of a tract of land, particularly described in the complaint, with damages for its detention. The summons, as copied in the transcript, is without date, and without any indorsement of service. The complaint is entitled of- the Spring term, 1873, and the trial was had in 1878.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas B. Wetmore, as special chancellor, selected by the parties, on account of the incompetency of Chancellor Dillard.

Heard before tbe Hon. H. C. Speake.- The bill in this case was filed on the 17th February, 1877, by the children of William H. Moore, and Thomas IJ.

Heard before the Hon. S. H. Sprott, as special chancellor, selected by the parties on account of the incompetency of Chancellor Dillard, who was related to some of the parties.

Heard before the Hon. Hitbiosco Austill. The bill in this case was filed on the 26th April, 1877, by James Robertson, against the Mobile Building and Loan Association, a private domestic corporation chartered under the general law (Rev. Code, §§ 1755-61); and sought to' enjoin an action at law, which the association had instituted against him, to recover the possession of a house and lot in the city of Mobile ; and also to have the contract on which the action at law was…

Appeals from the Chancery Court of Perry. Heard before the Hon. Charles Turner. These eases, involving substantially tbe same facts and questions, were argued and decided together, both in the court below, and in this court.

Motion to dismiss the appeal. The transcript has not come to the hands of the reporter, and he can not state the facts on which the motion is founded.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Mrs. Mary E. Winter, against the City Council of Montgomery, as a corporation, to recover moneys alleged to have been illegally exacted and collected by the defendant, and to have been paid by the plaintiff under protest and duress, and to avoid a sale of her property under execution, during the years 1868 to 1873, both inclusive; and was commenced on the 18th November, 1873.

ApReal from the Circuit Court of- Butler. Tried before the Hon. J. W. Posey, an attorney of the court, selected by the parties on account of the disqualification, of the presiding judge, who was related to one of the parties. This action was brought in the name of the register in chancery, suing for the use of Walter Tate, against Samuel J. Bolling and Henry M. Caldwell, sureties on an injunction bond for Holden Evans; and was commenced on the 31st October, 1877.

<p> Application for Mandamus to Circuit Cleric, requiring Approval of Bond as Security for Costs on Contest of Election. </p> <p>1. Contest of election; 'approval of bond as security for costs; when mandamus lies.— Iu the matter of approving a bond, tendered’to him as security for the costs of a contest of the election for a probate judge (Code, § 335), and deciding as to the sufficiency of the sureties, the circuit clerk is required to exercise 5uas;-judicial power; and the exercise of this power will not be controlled by mandamus.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Butler.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard.</p>

Heard before the Hon. Charles Turner. The bill in this case was filed on the 9th May, 1879, by Samuel P. Steele, against Philip A. Wood, Julia C. Houston, and George S. Houston; and sought particularly to enjoin a judgment at law, which said Julia C. Houston had recovered against the complainant, on a promissory note transferred to her by said Philip A. Wood; to vacate and set aside a sale of the complainant’s lands under thatjudgment, at which the plaintiff therein had…

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. • This was a garnishment on a judgment, sued out by James T. Giddens, the assignee of the plaintiff therein, against 0. P. Eogers, as the debtor of Thomas P. Williamson, the principal defendant in the judgment; and the garnishee having answered, admitting an indebtedness, a claim of exemption was thereupon interposed by the defendant, and contested by the plaintiff.

In the matter of the estate of Stephen Sims, deceased, on the petition of Arthur C. Sims, one of the heirs and distributees, to compel a final settlement of the accounts of P. B. Waters, as administrator de bonis non.

Application by petition by C. S. C. Brown, for the writ of habeas corpus,' to obtain bis discharge on bail from the custody of the sheriff of Montgomery county, charged with the murder of James Adams.

Appear, from the Chancery Court of Montgomery. Heard before the Hon. H. Austill. Held: that the mortgage to Chambers, “considering the instrument itself, and in connection with the testimony,” conveyed the title to Chambers as trustee for the use and benefit of the corporation, and should be regarded as a contract with the corporation, and was null and void, because the corporation had no power to lend money ; that W.…

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. The indictment in this case was found at the November term of the court, 1880, and charged that the defendant, Isaac Bonham, “ feloniously took and carried away one peck of corn, the same being part of the outstanding crop of corn, the property of Charles (?) Kennedy.” On the trial, as the bill of exceptions recites, “ the defendant having pleaded not guilty, the following proceedings were had: George (?) Kennedy, the person alleged in the…

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

Tried before the Hon. J. W. Posey, an attorney of the court, as special judge, selected by the parties on account of the incompetency from interest of the presiding judge.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This was a summary proceeding, by notice and motion, at the suit of David Johnson, against Abe Abrams as constable, and B. W. Sharp as the surety on his official bond; and was commenced before a justice oil the peace, on the 27th September, 1880.

Tried before tbe Hon. John K. Henry. Tbis action was brought in the name of A. Moog & Co., late partners doing business as merchants in the city of Montgomery, against W. J. Nicholson; and was commenced on the 21st day of April, 1877. The complaint contained only the common count for the price of goods sold and delivered on or before the 22d June, 1874, amounting to $78.29.

Application by petition by Jim Hubbard, for the writ of habeas corpus, to procure his discharge from custody and imprisonment by the chief of police of the city of Montgomery, under a judgment and sentence pronounced by the mayor’s court; application having been first made to Hon. Thomas M. Arrington, judge of the City Court of Montgomery, who refused to discharge the petitioner. ■

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by the appellants, suing as partners, against Anthony J oseph and his wife, Mrs. Catherine Joseph ; and sought to enforce a statutory lien upon a dwelling-house'in which the defendants resided, and the title to which was in a -trustee for the sole and separate use and benefit of Mrs. J oseph, under a deed from her said husband, for materials furnished by plaintiffs, and used in putting improvements on the house,…

Tried before tbe Hon. John K. Henry. Action for statutory penalty ($200), for defendant’s failure to enter of record, on request and demand of plaintiffs, satisfaction of a mortgage which had been paid and satisfied. Plea, that no demand or request was made by plaintiffs, or either of them. Replication, that the demand was made by plaintiffs’ agent and attorney, thereunto specially authorized.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in tbis case was filed on the 3d September, 1880, by William H. Flowers, against John Kingsbury, Gray Thigpen, and his wife, Mrs. Kate Thigpen, formerly the widow of W. H. Thames; and sought to enjoin and restrain, as a nuisance,¡further interments in a private burial-ground, the property of said Kingsbury and said Thames.

Tried before tbe Hon. James Q. Smith. Tbis action was brought by Mrs. Lydia H. Pope (and ber husband), Mrs. Mildred- E. Bicbardson (and ber busband), Mrs. Butb Sayre (and ber busband), and Georgia Goodman, an infant, against Mrs. Sarah J. Pickett; and was commenced on tbe 26tk January, 1870. The premises sued for were described in tbe declaration as lying within tbe corporate limits of tbe city of Montgomery.

From the Circuit Court of Lowndes. Tried before the Hon. John Moore. The prisoner in this case was indicted for the murder of Lena Riggs, an infant child of Richard H. and Emma Riggs, by means of morphine administered in a cup of coffee ; and one count in the indictment charged that the morphine was put in the coffee with the malicious intent of effecting the death of Mrs. Riggs, the mother of the child.

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Ered. Wolffe, against Mrs. -Emma Dreyfus, a married woman; was commenced on the '26th January, 1880; and was founded on the defendant’s promissory note for $182.30, which was dated the 18th April, 1879, and payable on the 1st October next after date, to the plaintiff’s order.

Tried before the Hon. John K. Henry. , This action was brought by Joseph Steiner, against John W. Grant, to recover damages for the conversion of two bales of cotton ; and was commenced on the 1st day of October, 1878.

Heard before the Hon. H. Austell. The original bill in this case was filed On the 1st March, 1871, by Stephen Schuessler, as the administrator of the estate of Joseph Bitter, deceased, against Thomas J. Orme, late general administrator of Montgomery county, and against Mrs. Anne Floyd and John A. Floyd, sureties on said Orme’s official bond, and against Mrs. M. A. Floyd (the wife of said John A. Floyd), and several other persons; and sought to reach certain lands, which were…

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by the administratrix of the estate of Charles W. A. Lide, deceased, against William J. Killen, to recover damages for the alleged conversion of several bales of cotton; and was commenced on the 26th September, 1876. “ On the trial,” as the bill of exceptions states, “ there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff’s intestate and defendant cropped together in 1870 and 1871, under an agreement by which the…

Heard before the Hon. H. Austell. The bill in this case was filed on the 14th March, 1872, by Mrs. Mary A. Downs, a married woman, suing by her husband as next friend, against the partners composing… Held: that Hopkins, Allen k Co. were not chargeable with the rents and profits of the property during Allen’s possession under the purchase at their sale.

Heard before the Hon. H. Austill. The original bill in this case was filed on the 25th March, 1876, by Andrew J. Dozier, against Thweat E.… Held: also, that the cross-bill contained equity, and that Mitchell was entitled to a redemption and account; and having rendered a decree reforming the mortgage, but refusing any relief as to the alleged mistake in the marshal’s deed to Durr, he ordered a reference to the register to state an account, under the following instructions :…

Tried before the Hon. John K. Henry. The indictment in this case charged, in the first count, that the defendant “ did assault Sarah Watson, with the intent to maim her ” ; and in the second, that he “ did assault Sarah Watson with the intent to maim her, by then and there pouring, or attempting to pour into her private parts, a mixture of spirits of turpentine and pepper, with the intent aforesaid.” The defendant demurred to each count of the indictment, and specified the…

Tried before the Hon. F. S. Ferguson, an attorney of the court, selected by the parties on account of the incompetency from interest of the presiding judge. Held: claimed, or to be set up, or which may hereafter be set up, held or claimed, by or on behalf of the said Mrs. A. L. Gayle, her heirs, executors,” &c., then the bond to be void.

Tried before the Hon. John A. Minnis. This action was brought by Flash Brothers, a mercantile partnership, doing business in New Orleans, against Loéb & Brother, a mercantile partnership doing business in Montgomery, to recover damages for the conversion of five hogsheads of sugar and ten barrels of molasses ; and was commenced on 27th January, 1879. The case was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

Tried before the Hon. John E. Henry. This action was brought by Benjamin L. Long, against Charles Mostyn and Mrs. Anna Mostyn, to recover the possession of a tract of land containing forty acres, particularly described on the complaint, together with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 2d November, 1876.

<p> Detinue for Houses as Personal Property, </p> <p>X. Homestead exemption; in what property claimed. —The constitutional and statutory provisions, securing homestead exemptions to debtors, are intended to preserve the home or dwelling-place of the debtor and his family, rather than any particular estate or interest in land ; and when a debtor has erected a house on leased lands, having reserved, by the terms of the lease, the privilege of removing it at the termination of his lease, he may claim it as his homestead, if it is used and occupied by himself and his family as their home ; and while so used and claimed, it can not be mortgaged without the voluntary signature and assent of the wife, «Manifested in the mode required by the statute.</p>

<p> Bill in Equity between Sureties, for Contribution, </p> <p>1. Contribution between sureties; jurisdiction of equity. — ■&. surety may maintain a bill in equity against his co-surety, for contribution, although he has also a remedy by action at law.</p> <p>2. When decree is final, and will support appeal — Under a bill for contribution between two co-sureties, several defenses being set up by answer and cross-bill, alleging defendant’s discharge, a special agreement among the several sureties as to the extent of their respective liabilities, and the complainant’s liability to account for money or property received by him as trustee for all the sureties, — as to all of which matters the evidence was conflicting; a decree rendered on a hearing on pleadings and proof, in these words : “ Upon consideration, it is ordered that complainant is entitled to relief; and the matter is referred to the register, to ascertain and report, at this term, the amount paid by the complainant on the notes, with interest to date, and what one half of such amount may be, and the demurrers to the cross-bill are overruled," is not such a final decree as will support an appeal.</p>

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. The indictment in this case contained but a single count, which charged that the defendant, “ with intent to injure or defraud, did falsely make or forge an order purporting to be the act of J. P. Btreety & Go., a merchant, firm, or partnership, in the town of Hayneville in said State, which order is in words and figures as follows ; ‘ Mr. Belgard, Let Wash, have 1 pint of good whiskey.

Heard before the Hon. Charles Turner. The bill in this case was filed on the 3d April, 1877, by Caroline L. Love, against Mary A. E. Love and Isaac I).

Heard before the Hon. H. Austell. The original bill in this case was filed on the 1st May, 1876, by Samuel J. Bolling, against James W. Munchus (other parties, plaintiff and defendant, being afterwards brought in by an amended bill); and sought the foreclosure of a mortgage, which is sufficiently described in the opinion of the court.

Heard before the Hon. H. Austell. The bill in this case was filed on the 30th March, 1875, by P. D. Sayre and numerous other persons, citizens of Montgomery) tax-payers, and owners of property in said city, against the City Council of Montgomery as a corporation ; and sought to restrain the collection of an alleged illegal tax.

Appear from tbe Circuit Court of Butler. Tried before tbe Hon. John K Henry. This action was brought bj Joseph J. Crenshaw, an infant, suing by next frien'd, to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant’s servants in charge of a train of cars ; and was commenced on the 20th September, 1875.

Heard before the Hon. H. Austjll. The bill in this case was filed in February, 1877, by Lehman Brothers (a partnership doing business in the city of New York), Lehman, Abraham & Co. (a partnership doing business in New Orleans), and Lehman, Durr & Co. (a partnership doing business in Montgomery, Alabama), against John G. McQueen, and the partners composing the firm of Moore, Waldman & Co., a partnership doing business in the city of Montgomery ; and sought the foreclosure of…

Heard before tbe Hon. H. Austill. The bill in this case was filed on tbe 16th September, 1878, by Mrs. Caroline R. Starke and the personal representative of Mrs. Olivia McDonald, deceased, as creditors of Frederick S. R>aoul, deceased, in behalf of themselves and all other creditors who might come in, against tbe administrator de bonis non of said F. S. Raoul, together with his widow and children, who were also the devisees under bis will, and several other persons claiming…

Heard before the Hon. H. Auktill. The bill in this case was filed on the 13th May, 1878, by John P. Dickinson, against Mrs. Frances Conniff, the widow of Patrick Conniff, deceased, and ber several children; and sought to subject certain trust property, held by tbe defendants under the will of said Patrick Conniff, or the rents, income and profits thereof, to the satisfaction of a debt due to the complainant for buildings erected by him, under a contract with Mrs. Conniff, on…

Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. This action was brought by Mrs. Margaret Bobinson, a married woman, against James B. Adams, and was commenced on the 19th September, 1877.

Tried before the Hon. John A. Minnis The appellee in this ease, Lethe Loftin, having obtained a judgment in October, 1873, at a regular term of said City Court, against Bobert T. Eorbes, sued out a garnishment on said judgment on the 15th January, 1877, and summoned Jacob Griel, the appellant, as the debtor of said Forbes.

Heard before tbe Hon. H. Austill. The bill in this case -was filed on the 9th August, 1879, by Mrs. Maria L. Sloan, a married woman, suing by her next friend, against her husband, Edward A. Sloan, James H. Frothingham, and several other persons ; and sought to set aside a sale of certain real estate, made under a power in a mortgage executed by Robert R. Belshaw and others to Charles B. Tatham, of New York, and to have the property sold in foreclosure and satisfaction of a…

Application by petition, on the part of the South and North Alabama liailroad Company, for a mandamus to the Hon. John P. Hubbard, presiding in the Circuit Court of Butler, commanding and requiring him to vacate an order made in term time, by which he allowed certain amendments to the complaint in an action pending in said court against the petitioner, and to the allowance of which a bill of exceptions was duly reserved by the petitioner.

Tried before the Hon. John Moobb. This action was brought by Mrs. Elora J. Ricbie and others, against Frank E. May and H. G. Parmer, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 22d September, 1880. Two of the plaintiffs were the daughters of Mrs. Christiana Pugh, deceased, “ who died about nine years before the commencement of tbis suit,” and the others were her grandchildren by a deceased daughter.

Heard before tbe Hon. John A. Foster. The. bill in this case was filed on tbe 9th October, 1879, by Gamble & Bolling, attorneys-at-law, suing as partners, against Mrs. Elizabeth Hinson and ber husband, John E. Hinson ; and sought to condemn by process of garnishment against Conrad Wall, who was also made a defendant, a debt clue from Mm to Mrs. Hinson for tbe purchase-money of a tract of land, which had belonged to Mrs. Hinson’s statutory separate estate; and to subject it,…

Heard before tbe Hon. H. Austill. The bill in tliis case was filed on the 2d March, 1880, by W. P. Yanderveer, against Bobert Y. Ware individually, and as the executor of tbe last will and testament of Bobert J. Ware, and against tbe widow and children of said testator; and sought to coerce satisfaction of a judgment, which tbe complainant had paid as tbe surety of said Bobert Y. Ware, out of tbe lands devised by the testator’s will to the several defendants, or out of tbe…

Tried before the Hon. John A. Minnis. This action was brought by William G. Robertson, against Patrick Robinson, and was commenced on 24th September, 1878.

Heard before the Hou. H. Austill. The original bill in this case was filed on the 27th November, 1875, by Mrs. Jane D. Massey, against Nathan B. Cook .and J. Moses Davis, and alleged the following facts: That on the 20th March, 1873, Cook borrowed from complainant the sum of $5,576, for which he gave her his promissory note, payable twelve months after date; and, to secure the payment of said note, he also executed to her a mortgage on a tract of land therein particularly…

. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This was an application for a mandamus, sued out in the name of the State, on the relation of W. D. Zuber, tax-assessor of Montgomery, against Charles T. Pollard, jr., tax-collector of said county, to compel him to collect certain taxes, alleged to have been legally assessed, for State and county purposes, on shares of stock in the First National Bank of Montgomery, and the Merchants’ and Planters’ National Bank of said city, owned by…