Volume 8 — Porter's Alabama Reports (1834–1839)

This was art action of trespass to try title, prosecuted by the plaintiffs in error, in the Circuit court of Mobile county; and tried before Harris, J. The plea was, not guilty; and issue being joined, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants.

Detinue for a slave. To the declaration, defendant plead non detinei, and the jury found a special verdict, as follows: That on the first of January, eighteen hundred and thirty five, the slave was, and for a long time previously had been, the property of Jane Carnathan, then a minor and unmarried, and was in possession of her guardian, George Hays: That on the said first of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-five, the slave was hired by the guardian to defendant, John T.…

Forcible entry and detainer. This case was brought by certiorari, to the Circuit court, where the judgment, rendered on the verdict of the jury, by the justice, was overruled, without an assignment of errors.

Case — tried before Judge Pickens. This case was commenced by a writ issued against fifteen defendants, stated therein to be owners of a steam-boat, .for repairs done to the boat, and for work and labor done generally, not averring that the defendants were partners. The declaration charged them as partners and owners of the steam boat, and declared against some of them for repairs done to the boat, in one count, and in the other, for work and labor generally.

This was an action of assumpsit, on an inland bill of exchange. The judgment was taken by default; and the errors in the judgment, here insisted on, among, others not considered by the court, were— 1. That judgment was taken by default for principal, interest and damages, when it was not shewn by averment in the declaration, that the bill had been protested. -2.

Forcible entry and detainer, tried-before Judge Harris This case was brought up to the Circuit court, by cer-tiorari, from a justice of the peace. Plaintiff below complained before the justice, of forcible entry and detainer, against the defendant. Ilotts, and one Jordan, against whom the case was discontinued, as it appeared the summons had not been served on him. Plea, not guilty. Verdict, guilty — and judgment accordingly. The errors assigned in the Circuit court, were— 1.

Bill for discovery. — The hill was on motion of the defendant, dismissed for want of equity; and the plaintiff' in error assigned: 1. That the court below' erred in dismissing the hill for want of equity. 2. In rendering a plea against complainant for the* costs.

Assumpsit on a promissory note. ■ The action, in this case, was brought in the County court, where judgment was rendered for defendants, on a plea of off-set, for one dollar and four cents. To reverse the judgment, the case was then taken, by writ of error, to the Circuit court, where the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded to the County court.

Trover for a promissory note, tried before Judge Short-ridge. Defendant plead, not guilty. Judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff in error assigned the charge of the court below, as contained in a bill of exceptions taken at the trial. Reference being fully made to the hill of exceptions, in the decision of the court, it is therefore unnecessary to set it forth at length here.

Trial of the right of property, before Judge Pickens. Held: and that the deeds were recorded in Montgomery county, in September, eighteen hundred and thirty-two. The debt of the plaintiffs in the execution was contracted prior to the record of the deed.

Assumpsit on a promissory note, tried before Pickens, J. Plaintiff declared against defendant on a promissory note, to which defendant plead, that the note was made in South Carolina, and that defendant was a citizen of that State, more than four years after cause of action accrued on the note, and that by the law of South Carolina, all 'actions on any writing not a specialty, must be brought in four years, and not afterwards; and further that no action was commenced in that…

Bank notice, tried before Pickens, J. This was a notice issued by the President of the Planters’ and Merchants’ Bank of Mobile, to defendant, as endorser on a note dated June twentieth, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, for four thousand nine hundred and forty dollars, drawn by H. S. Levert, payable to - defendant or order, sixty days after date, for value received, negotiable and payable at the Planters’ and Merchants’ Bank of Mobile, and which was protested for…

Bank notice, tried before Pickens, J. The notice, in this case, was issued on a note dated June twentieth, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, payable sixty days after date, to Joseph Bates, jr. or order, for four thousand nine hundred and forty dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable at the Planters’ and Merchants’ Bank of Mobile, and endorsed by the payee.

Bank notice, against the endorser of a bill of exchange, tried before Pickens, X Plea, noiv-assumpsil. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs. On the trial of the case, the plaintiffs read in evidence a bill of exchange, of which the following is a copy: “Exch: for $10,000. . • - “ 1 August, 1836. “ Five months after date of this first of exchange, (second of the same tenor and date unpaid,) pay to Wm.

Bank notice, tried before Pickens, J. On the sec'ond day of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, a notice was served on the plaintiffs in error, informing them that at the then next term of the Circuit court of Mobile, to be, held on the second after the ‘ fourth Monday in October, the President of the Bank would move for judgment against plaintiffs in error, as the endorsers of a promissory note, expressly made payable and negotiable at the said Bank, which note…

Notice by an indorser who had paid a bill of exchange, to his principal, that a motion would be made for judgment. The defendants, as the indorsers of a bill of exchange, negotiated at the Branch Bank at Montgomery, having paid the same, gave notice to the plaintiffs that they would move the County court of Montgomery, to be holden on the first Monday in December, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, for a judgment against them as drawers, according to the statute.

Assumpsit upon a note signed “ G. F. Davis, A. K. Smith.” On the fifteenth of July, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, the writ issued against Davis and Smith, returnable to the July term following of the County court. The writ was returned, executed on Davis alone, and the declaration was against him, discontinuing as to Smith. At January term, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, judgment on verdict was rendered against Davis, reciting dismissal as to Smith.

Issue to try the right of property, tried before Cren-shaw, J. Verdict and judgment for the claimant. In this case, the bill of exceptions stated, that on the trial of the cause, the plaintiffs in execution, produced and proved the issuance of an attachment by them, on the thirtieth March, .eighteen hundred and thirty-two, against the estate of Stephen Miller, an absconding debt- or, which was levied on the property in question.

Debt, on anote given for the hire of negroes, tried before Lane, J. The plaintiff in error, declared in debt against the defendant in the Circuit court of Lauderdale, on a writing, of which the following is a copy : “ f348.

Assumpsit on a promissory note, payable in Bank. To an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, as the maker of a promissory note, payable and negotiable at the Branch Bank at Mobile, to the, order of Thomas'Evans, and endorsed to the defendant, the plaintiff in error pleaded the general issue, and also that the note was not the property of the defendant in error, in his individual capacity.

This was a motion against Bell, as sheriff, suggesting, that he could have made the money on an execution} issued from Montgomery County court, in favor of the defendant in error, against Garrett, Couch and Hooks. On the second day of June, eighteen hundred and thirty-five, the fi. fa. was received hy Bell, as sheriff. The execution was returned nulla bona.

Detinue for a slave. The plaintiff brought an action of detinue in the court below, against the defendant, to recover a slave. - The defendant pleaded in abatement of the suit, that previous to the institution of the suit, she had filed her bill in chancery, claiming said slave as her own property, by virtue of a deed of gift from her husband, the plaintiff’s intestate, and praying that the plaintiff be restrained from distributing said slave as part of the estate of said…

Assumpsit on a promissory note. This action was brought by the holder against an endorser, who pleaded the general issue, and a verdict was rendered, and judgment entered up against the defendant. . On the trial of the case, the plaintiff proved the note, endorsement and protest.

This action -was originally commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant, before a justice o.f the peace, where he obtained a judgment against the defendant. From this judgment, an appeal was taken to the Circuit court of Morgan county. The defendant pleaded in abatement of the suit, that he was a resident freeholder of Limestone county. To this plea, the plaintiff demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, and gave the defendant leave to plead over.

This was an action of assumpsit for money lent, laid out and expended, &c. to and for the use of the intestate of the plaintiffs in error. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant in error, on the plea of non-assump-sit. The writ was dated twenty-ninth February, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, and the entry of judgment was— “At a Circuit court began and held for the county of Co-necuh, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1836.”— It was here assigned in error — ■ 1.

Trespass, to try title, before Paul, J. In this case, plaintiff, to support his action, offered in 'evidence, a grant (from the Spanish government to one Forbes, under whom plaintiff claimed,) dated February sixth, eighteen hundred and six. ( The evidence was rejected, on the ground that the grant was made by a government which had no power or authority to make /such a grant. Defendant had a verdict, and the exclusion of the grant as evidence was assigned as erroneous.

Trespass, tried before Harris, J. This was an action of trespass, brought by Barnett, as an acting constable, against the intestate.

Trover, tried before Shortridge, J. The plaintiff declared against the defendant, in an action of trover; for that plaintiff, on the first day of September, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, was possessed of a certain dark bay horse, of the value of two hundred dollars, which he casually lost, and which afterwards came to the possession of • defendant by finding, who refused to deliver him to plaintiff, and disposed of him to his own use, &c. To this…

Trover for a slave, tried before Harris, J. The plaintiff in error brought an action of trover in the Circuit court of Autauga, against the defendant, for the conversion of a slave. The defendant pleaded “ not guilty,” and the case was submitted to the jury. On the trial, a bill of exceptions was taken by the plaintiff, from which it appeared, to be probable that the slave alleged to have been converted, was sent across the Coosa river with a letter, by the defendant.

Assumpsit, tried before Pickens, J. In this case, the place of holding court was left blank in the writ: there was no appearance by defendant, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff — to reverse which, a writ of error was sued out. Plaintiff assigned for error— 1. That the writ is not made returnable in any court, and that defendant in the court below had no notice of the suit; 2.

Tried before Judge Crenshaw. The bill, in this case, stated that the father of complainants, before his death, (which took place in eighteen and thirty,) made his will — which contained the following clauses: “Secondly. — I will and bequeath unto my son William, and my soii-in-law, Young W. Grayson, the following negroes, to wit, a negro man named Allen, and his wife Aggey, and their three children, Ceesar, Alta-more and Amey, with their future increase. “Thirdly. — I will…

Bill for discovery and relief, tried by Coleman, J. The bill was filed by the sheriii' of Lawrence county, who, ex virtvte q/JlcU, had been appointed administrator of the estate of Maury. The intestate had placed in the hands of Mason, in October, eighteen hundred and twenty-one, a large number of notes, bonds and accounts, amounting to more than nine thousand dollars, — who undertook and promised to collect them.

This was an action of detinue for slaves, brought by the defendant in error. The plaintiff assumed title to the slaves, sued for under a contract of purchase from one Harwood Goodwyn. The proof on the part of the defendant in error was, that Robert Goodwyn, the defendant below, had given to his son Harwood two negro girls, which went into Harwood’s possession, and so remained for about two years.

Attachment against an absent debtor, tried before Pickens, J. In this case, the sheriff returned that he had levied the attachment on sundry articles, without adding that the articles levied on were the property of defendant: judgment was rendered against defendant, and the property levied on, condemned to satisfy the judgment. The plaintiff in error assigned: That the suit commenced by an attachment.

Assumpsit on a promissory note, payable in bank, tried before Pickens, J. In this case, judgment for plaintiff was rendered by nil dicit.

Debt, in attachment on foreign judgment. This was an action of debt on a judgment obtained against defendant in Georgia. There was no appearance, and judgment was rendered against him for a larger amount than was claimed in the declaration. To reverse the judgment so obtained, a writ of error was sued out. The errors assigned are stated in the opinion of the court.

Indebitatis assumpsit for work and labor, tried before Pickens, J. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered in evidence, a written contract, executed by the parties, a copy of which is appended; to the reading of which, under the declaration, the defendant objected, but was overruled, and tlie contract read to the jury.

birr or to the Circuit court of Montgomery. Assumpsit on a bill of exchange, tried by Crenshaw, J. At the trial of this cause, the plaintiffs to the action gave in evidence the bill of exchange described in the declaration, and a protest for its non-payment on the day it became due, in which the notary had certified that he dc,posited in the post office at Mobile on the same day. notices of the protest for the drawers and endorsers, under cover, addressed to D. Hudson, Escp,…

Assumpsit on a bill of exchange. The cause of action, in this case, was a bill of exchange, orally accepted by defendant. Also, for damages sustained by plain tiffs, by reason of a breach of contract by defendant, in. refusing to accept a draft, after having promised and undertaken to accept (be same. The record showed, that at February term, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, a non-suit was taken, after a jury sworn, and a new trial granted.

Bill of foreclosure, tried before Lipscomb, J. This case was before the Supreme court, at July term, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight — (See 1 Stewart, 566, where the case is reported at length.) It was remanded with a view, among other things, of enabling the complainant to make additional parties defendants. This duty, it appears, was neglected by complainant, and a decree rendered against him below — to review which decree, the case was again brought up to this court.

Bill of foreclosure, tried before Harris, J. In this case, the defendant failed to appear and answer, and the bill was referred to the clerk and master to take an account. The defendant appeared before the master to contest the claim of complainant, and exceptions were filed to the report, which were overruled. The defendant was foreclosed of his equity of redemption, and the mortgaged premises ordered to be sold, unless the amount claimed was paid by defendant.

The defendant in error filed his libel below, against the steamer Fox, for sundry goods, wares and merchandise, furnished for the use of the vessel. The plaintiff in error answered, denying the truth of the allegations contained in the libel, which he prayed might be enquired of by the country. The court, by its decree, condemned the vessel, her tackle, apparel and 'furniture, for the payment of the debt, with interest and -costs.

Assumpsit on a promissory note, tried before Picket, J. The defence, in this case, was, that a former action had been brought against defendant, by one Pugh, on the identical note, and that the defendant had paid the amount called for by the note, to the clerk of the court, whose receipt for the same was produced.

In this case, a writ of error was sued out, to reverse a judgment in debt, of the Circuit court of Monroe county, and a decree of Hie same court, exercising chancery jurisdiction, in a case between the same parties, Was appended to the transcript sent up! The error assigned was, that the court below erred in dismisssing complainant’s bill.

Assumpsit tried before Harris, J. The action was brought to recover of defendant for money paid, laid out and expended, lent and advanced, for defendant by plaintiff: also for money by plaintiff paid as security for defendant, and one Henry Ross, on a note executed by Ross & Roberts. Alfred Roberts and plaintiff, dated Mobile, twenty-fifth February, eighteen hundred and thirty-four, payable sixty days after the date thereof, to White & Seymour, for eight hundred dollars.

Detinue, tried before Judge A. Marlin. Plaintiff declared against defendant in detinue, for several slaves which defendant had taken from the possession of plaintiff and unlawfully detained. Plea — non-daiinet. Yer-dict and judgment for plaintiff. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff proved that he acquired the possession of the slaves, the subject of the controversy, on his intermarriage with.one A R in South Carolina, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-two.

Trespass, to try title, before Harris, J. Defendant plead not guilty. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiffs; to reverse which, a writ of error was taken. It was, in part, assigned in error— That there was no proper or sufficient description of the land sued, for, in the writ, declaration, verdict or judgment;- — wherefore, for uncertainty, and because no particular quantity is named, described or identified, tire said proceedings were erroneous.

Petition for dower, tried before Lane, J. The plaintiff instituted proceedings in the Circuit court of Madison county, praying that dower might be allotted to her in two quarter sections of land described in the petition. The court below dismissed the petition, on the ground, that the husband-of the plaintiff, in his life time, was not seized of such an estate as to vest in his widow a right of dower, and this judgment was removed to this court by writ of error.

This was an action of assumpsit, by Lukens & Son, against Hitchcock & Williams. The declaration contained two counts — one special, and one common count, for money had and received.

Assumpsit against an administrator. On the trial of the cause, defendant suggested, that since'the ljast term, he had resigned his administration, and that one Riddle, as sheriff of the county, had been appointed, which appeared to the court to be true, and matter of record in the Orphan’s court. Whereupon, defendant moved to be discharged from the suit, and he was accordingly discharged.

' Assumpsit against the endorser of a promissory note. This action was brought upon a note endorsed by the plaintiff in error, which note was payable to the order of Thomas Evans, negotiable and payable at the Branch Bank at Mobile, and endorsed by said Thomas Evans. The declaration averred, demand and protest, and the pleas were — 1. Non-assumpsit. 2. That the note was not the property of the plaintiff, in his individual capacity. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff below.

Detinue for slaves, tried by Pickens, J. An action of detinue, was instituted by Harrison, against Elizabeth B. and James Rochelle, for the recovery of two negro slaves. The defendants pleaded the general issue; and at the trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff, against Elizabeth B., and in favor of the other defendant; on which judgment was rendered.

Bank notice, tried before Pickens, J. The following was the notice served on defendant: “The State of Alabama, Mobile county. uTo James… Held: in and for the county of Mobile, at the court house thereof, on the second Monday after the fourth Monday of October, 1837 — on Saturday, the 13th day of January, 1837, being a day of said term, the following judgment was rendered in this cause, to wit: “Bank of Mobile vs. James Curry. — Debt. “This day came the parties, by their…

<p>Error to the County court of Washington.</p> <p>Proceedings by commissioners appointed in lieu of the. Orphan’s court, where the judge was interested. Execution issued against plaintiff in error.</p> <p>The record recited, that John James, Joseph Black and John H. Owen, were appointed commissioners by “ the circuit judge, to settle the estate of the late Charles Yivi-an, with Joseph D. Lister, esquire, administrator of said estate, and judge of the County court of Washington county.” And further, “ that at an adjourned term of an Orphan’s court, held in and for said county, on the twenty-second day of January, in the year of our Lord, eighteen hundred and thirty-five, by Messrs. John James, Joseph Black and John H. Owen, the two former present —the latter absent — the aforesaid commissioners examined the charges and statements, and all matters relative to the estate of the late Charles Vivian, deceased, wherein the honorable Josiah D. Lister, administrator thereof, was concerned, and made an estimate, of what to them appeared, from all the evidence before them, to be just; which said report was ordered to be filed.”</p> <p>The report then set forth the amounts and dates of a number of notes, made by different individuals, which, with interest, amounted to more than eight thousand dollars. It also contained a charge for the hire of negroes, which, with interest, amounted to near one thousand dollars. Then follows an affidavit, in these words :</p> <p>“The State of Alabama, Washington county.</p> <p>“ Personally came before me, William Grimes, clerk of the County court of said county, Messrs. John James and Joseph Black, commissioners appointed by the honorable the judge of the Circuit court, to make settlement of the estate of Charles Vivian, deceased, with Josiah D. Lister, administrator thereof; have examined the said case, to the best of our abilities, and make our report thereupon, as appears on this sheet. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 22d day of January, A. D. 1835.</p> <p>“ Wm. Grimes, Cl’k. “John James,</p> <p>“Joseph Black.”</p> <p>This is an abstract of so much of the record, as relates to the appointment of the commissioners, the settlement, and their report. And on this, the clerk of the County court issued an execution for the aggregate sum with which the plaintiff is charged by the settlement. Upon the supposition that the record discovers a final order or decree, a writ of error is prosecuted to this court.</p>

Proceedings against an executor. . On the thirtieth day of March, eighteen hundred and thirty-five, Joshua B. Leavens, then of the city of Mobile, made and published his last will and testament, by… Held: if a case was produced, in which it was quite clear that there were no debts, the court would give the fund to the legatee, though the twelve months had not elapsed — (Pearson vs. Pearson, 1 Scho. & Lefr.

Attachment. The plaintiff in error caused an attachment to be issued against the defendant, returnable to the County court of Mobile, upon the affidavit of their cashier and agent, which declared “ that Solomon Andrews, of the city of Mobile, was indebted to the said Planters’ and Merchants’ Bank of Mobile, in the sum of two hundred and seventy thousand and eighty-five dollars, and twenty-one cents, on bills of exchange, which had not arrived at maturity, and which were not…

Case for a false warranty, tried by Judge A. Martin. The defendant in error brought an action in the Circuit court of Montgomery, to recover damages of the plaintiff, for having falsely warranted to be sound, a negro woman, which he had previously sold to him. The case was tried on the general issue, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for three hundred and seventy-two dollars.

Bill for injunction and discovery, tried before Cren-shaw, J. The plaintiff in error exhibited his bill on the equity side of the Circuit court of Wilcox county, alleging that the defendant had recovered a judgment against him, on which an execution had issued against his estate; and stating that the defendant, in the same character in which the judgment was obtained, was indebted to him in a sum larger than the judgment.

Indictment for keeping and exhibiting a faro hank, tried before Shortridge, J. The defendant was charged with keeping and exhi- ■ biting a gaming 'table, by an indictment, which was as follows: “ The State of Alabama, Tallapoosa county — Circuit court, October term, 1836.

Assumpsit on two promissory notes, ágainst Baker Hobson, Nicholas Hobson and China Hobson, copartners, trading under the firm and style of B. Hobson & Sons. The service of the writ was accepted by defendants in the following words endorsed on the writ: “We do hereby acknowledge legal service of the within —this 28 Sept. 1836.

Error t.o the Circuit court of Dallas. Assumpsit on promissory note, tried before Pickens, J. The plaintiffs in error were sued in assumpsit, on a promissory note, in the Circuit court of Dallas, and judgment by default rendered against them. The only error relied on was, that “ the declaration is defective, in not stating a legal liability.”

<p>Error to the Circuit court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Indictment for malicious mischief, tried by Judge. A. Martin.</p> <p>This was an indictment against the defendant, for malicious mischief, in killing a mare, the property of one Henry Cannon.</p> <p>Issue being joined on the plea of not guilty, the jury found a verdict against the defendant, of 'two hundred dollars.</p> <p>A motion was made in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the value of the mare charged in the indictment to have been maliciously killed by the defendant, was not averred in the indictment; which motion, the court overruled, but reserved the point for the revision of this court, as one of novelty and difficulty.</p>

, Detinue for slaves, tried by Harris, J. The action was detinue, brought by the plaintiff in this court.

Assumpsit on promissory note. In this case, the County court of Wilcox, on motion of the defendant’s attorney, at the term holden in January, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, quashed the plaintiffs’ writ, which was issued on the third day of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, and made returnable in its body, as follows: “ before the honorable the County court, to be holden for Wilcox county, at the place of holding said court, on the fourth Monday in January ■…

Indictment for Issuing a change bill, tried before Pick-ens, J. The indictment charged plaintiff in error, and one Williams, with having “ made a promissory note, and put forth the same as a change bill, as follows, to wit: contrary to the form of the statute,” &c. To the indictment, defendants demurred; which being overruled, they plead not guilty. Bourne was convicted, and Williams acquitted. To reverse tire judgment against Bourne, a writ of error was sued out.

Mobile Circuit court. Indictment for stealing a slave, tried by Judge Pickens. This was an indictment found against the prisoner, in the Circuit court of Mobile county, for stealing a slave. There was a verdict against the prisoner, on the plea of not guilty,, and judgment pronounced against him.

.Assumpsit on note, tried before Shortridge, J. On the the twenty-sixth of September, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, the defendant in error caused to be • issued against the plaintiff, from, the clerk of the Circuit court of Monroe, a writ in usual from, with a cause of action thereon, endorsed in these words : “ This action is founded on an instrument in writing, of which the following is a copy : ‘-on the first day of January next, I promise to pay John Philips, or…

Errtn- to Vf licor: County court. Assumpsit on loIc. In this case, Cachón was cued by Parsons in the County court of Wilcox tounfy, and pleaded the pendency of another suit for the same cause of action, in abatement.

■ Indictment for mayhem, triec^before Crenshaw, J. The indictment contained three counts — the first of which charged as follows : that defendant, “ with force and arms, in and upon one P J, did make an assault, and upon the left arm of him the said P I, with a certain stick, which he the said defendant then and there had and held in both his hands, did strike and break, and did oh purpose and of malice aforethought, unlawfully disable the said left arm of him said P Jp with…

Trespass quare'clausum, tried by Pickens, J. This was an action of trespass, to try title to a tract of land, brought by the defendant, against the plaintiffs in error.

Slander, tried by Harrís, J. This was an action of slander, brought by tiie plaintiff in this court, against the defendants, for slanderous words spoken by the wife. The declaration contained eight counts. To all the counts, except the second, a general demurrer was filed, which were sustained by the court.

Trespass quare clausum fregit, tried by Pickens, J. Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment for defendant.

Assumpsit on note, tried 'by Judge Pickens. The defendant in error, brought an action of assump-sit against the plaintiff, in the Circuit court of Wilcox, on a promissory note of the following tenor: “ $1243 83. “ Wilcox county, So. Alabama, 20th December, 1834. On first January, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, (with interest from 1835,) I promise to pay Moses Sanders, or bearer, twelve hundred and forty-three dollars, and eighty-three cents, for value received.

Assumpsit for rent of land. The defendant brought assumpsit against the plaintiff, in the Circuit court of Pickens, for the recovery of rent, which the second count in the declaration alleged that the plaintiff had assumed and promised to pay to the defendant, in consideration that he (as administrator of the estate of Bryant Ferguson, deceased,) had allowed him to occupy a parcel of land belonging to the estate of his intestate, situate in the county of Pickens.

Assumpsit on bill of exchange, tried by Judge P. Martin. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error, as endorsee of a bill of exchange,, against the plaintiffs in error. The declaration was in the following words: “ State of Alabama: “In the Circuit court, March term, 1838.

Decree for equalising distribution. In this case, the Orphan’s court appointed commissioners to divide the personal property — the estate béing clear of debt. They were ordered to value advancements under the law of hotchpot. The commissioners divided the estate, and charged the plaintiff with seven hundred and ninety-two dollars, and seventy cents, to be paid to the administrator, for the purpose of making the shares of the other heirs equal to that of plaintiff.

Indictment for negro stealing, tried before Harris, J. The prisoner'was indicted for negro stealing, ata térm of the Circuit court of Dallas county : on his application, the venue was changed to Wilcox county, where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, by the Circuit court of the latter county. Several questions were reserved by the presiding judge, for the consideration of this court, which may be stated in the following order:— . 1.

Assumpsit on a promissory note. -The defendant in error, as the endorsee of Méssrs. Brewster, Solomon &, Co., brought an action of assumpsit against she plain tiffs, in the Circuit court of Greene; and in his declaration, as well as writ, described the plaintiffs as “late merchants, doing business under the name, style and firm of Beal & Bennett.” The cause of action was a promissory note, in these words : “ $974 38-100.

Detinue for a slave, tried before Judge Paul. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. On the trial of this case, plaintiff below offered in evidence a copy of the will of Nathan Beal, and a paper, a copy of which is attached, marked A, purporting to be a division of the property mentioned in the will.

Assumpsit on note, tried by A. Martin, X This action was founded on a bill of exchange, dated March twelfth, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, drawn by Whitman & Hubbard on, and accepted by defendant below, for ten thousand dollars, payable sixty days after date, to the order of Thomas W. Brame — made negotiable and payable at the Bank of Moble — and endorsed by Thomas W. Brame, William S. Brame, and Walsh & Fitzpatrick — and protested for non-payment.

Debt on bond.- This was an action of debt, on a writing under seal,’ brought by the defendant in this court, against the plaintiffs. Held: that where there is a'subscribing witness to a lost instrument, no other witness can be introduced to prove a copy of the bond, unless the subscribing witness recollects the contents of the instrument, and has compared the copy with the original.

Trover, tried by Harris, J. This action was commenced by proce*ss of attachment, issued by a justice of the peace, and returnable to the Circuit court of Autauga county. At the return term, the plaintiff declared in trover'for a slave, and the defendant not appearing, a judgment by default was rendered against him; but because the damages were unknown, a writ of enquiry was directed to be executed at the ensuing term.

Writ of error to the Orphan’s court, tried by Cren-shaw, J. In this case, there were two assignments of error— one iu the Circuit court, and another in this court.

Assumpsit against an administrator, tried by Judge Martin. The plaintiff in error washed in the Circuit court of Talladega, as the administrator of James Brasher, senior, deceased, and pleaded (among other pleas) ne tinques administrator.

- This action was commenced before a justice of the peace, by the defendant in this court, against the plaintiff. There did not appear to have been any judgment rendered by the justice, further than might be inferred from the appeal bond, which recited, that judgment was rendered for plaintiff below.

Trial of the right of property, before :Pickens, J. On the twenty-sixth day of May, A. D. eighteen hundred and thirty-two, the clerk of the Circuit court of Monroe, issued a pluries writ of fieri facias, directed to the sheriff of Mobile county, requiring him to make of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of William H. Howell, an amount in damages and costs, said to have been adjudged to the defendant in error by the Circuit court of Monroe, which fieri facias was…

■ Assumpsit against executors, tried by Martin, J. The defendants in error sued the plaintiffs,.as the executors of Thomas Ivey, deceased, in the Circuit court of Pickens, on a promissory note, made by their testator and another.