Volume 7 — Florida Reports

<p>It is irregular to bring original papers from the Circuit Court, which by law and the rules of Court, are required to be deposited in the Clerk’s office, and the Court will not decide a ease so presented to them.</p> <p>If the originals are required in a ease, they may be had on motion or application to the Court or to the Circuit Judge.</p> <p>Nor will the Court entertain a ease without writ of error or appeal.</p>

This was a motion made in behalf of Rabón, for an order to make the writ of error in this case a supersedeas. The facts on which the motion was based appear in the opinion of the Court.

<p>Appeal from a judgment in Hamilton Circuit Court. The facts of the case are fully set out in the opinion of the Court, to which reference is made.</p>

This was an action of assumpsit instituted by tbe appellee, against, the appellant, to recover the balance due upon a subscription by the appellant, to tbe capital stock of said Plank-Road Company.

<p>Attorneys and Officers of the Court are prohibited bylaw from signing appeal and other bonds for their clients, on pain of having the proceeding dismissed, and of being held in contempt of Court.</p>

The appellees, Felkel and wife, and John McCoy and wife, as complainants in the Court below, filed their bill in Leon Circuit Court against the appellants as Executors of William Turner, deceased, for the purpose of restating and resettling their accounts as such Executors. Daniel Hambletou, as administrator of his wife, who was a daughter and legatee of said William Turner, filed a bill for the same purpose.

The case was argued on its merits by W. G. M. Davis for the appellants, and Messrs. Long Galbraith for appellees, but the Court declined to make a decision upon the questions presented, for the reasons and upon the facts set forth in the opinion, to which reference is made.

Hardy B. Oroom and his wife Frances, his daughter Henrietta, his son ‘William and his daughter Justina, all perished by the wreck of the steamboat Home, 9th October, 1837. Mrs. Frances Croom was the daughter of complainant, Henrietta Smith, and the sister of complainant, Elizabeth Armistead.

The Appellee, by his counsel, W. Gr. M. Davis, presents hereby a petition that a re-hearing be had of this cause. The petitioner asks for a re-hearing on the following grounds: First.

On the first day of May, 1828, Burwell McBride, of South Carolina, executed a deed of trust to certain trustees, conveying to them certain negroes therein named, subject to the following among other trusts, viz: “ for the use of his daughter Caroline McBride, during her natural life, and in case she should marry, then in trust to and for the use of the said .Caroline and her husband, during their natural lives, to take and receive the profit, labor and employment of said…

This was an action of assumpsit instituted by the appellee against the appellant, to recover an amount subscribed to the Capital Stock of said Company. The declaration contains twelve counts. The first six counts were over-ruled on demurrer and stricken out.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Eastern Circuit for Duval County.</p> <p>The facts of the case are set out. in the opinion of the Court, to which reference is made.</p>

<p>No one but an Iieir of the realty or entitled to distribution, has a right to contest the pi'obate of a will or a devise of the realty and slaves.</p> <p>An executor is not an incompetent witness to the will or devise, unless ho is a legatee or devisee, or has an interest in the estate bequeathed to him; commissions to which he may be entitled as executor, will not exclude him under our laws.</p>

John’s county. Tbe executor of Robert McHardy, dec’d., instituted this suit in tbe Court below against tbe creditors and devisees of said Robert McHardy and others, asking advice as to tbe administration of said estate, the disposition of a sum of money on band, the payment of debts, the distribution amongst those entitled and a final discharge.

This was an action of assumpsit instituted by the ap' pellees as plaintiffs in the Court below, against the appellants, to recover tbe price and value of a raft containing eleven hundred and two round saw logs, estimated at three hundred and two thousand two hundred and thirty-two feet, alleged to have been bargained and sold by plaintiffs to defendants.

Appepl from the Circuit Court of the Western Circuit. The facts as presented in the bilí of exceptions in this Case appear in the opinion of the Court.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the "Western Circuit.</p> <p>The facts of the case are set out in the opinion of the Court, to which reference is made.</p> <p>(The names of the counsel in the case have not been furnished to the Reporter.)</p>

Complainant filed his bill in the Courtbelow, alleging that William Handcock, on the 22d October, 1845, lent him, complainant, four hundred dollars, and in order to secure the payment of the same they applied to Simeon L. Spark-man to draw an instrument of writing (intended to be a mortgage), to secure the payment of said sum ; that said Sparkman, for the purpose aforesaid, drew a common hill of sale from complainant to said Handcock, of and to a negro girl named Harriet,…