Volume 80 — Alabama Reports

Tried before Hon. Jas. E. Cobb. The defendant, Willis Beck, was tried and convicted under a plea of not guilty at the Spring Term of said court, 1886, of the offense of carrying a concealed pistol.

Tried before IIon. Jno. Haralson. The defendant was indicted and tried' for robbery. At the time of the trial, the defendant, being arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the court proceeded to draw a special jury as required by the jury law of Dallas county. . At the same time there was another defendant present, charged with murder, whose trial was set for the same day, and for whose trial a special jury was also to be drawn.

Tried before the lion. John Moore. The appellant in this ease, Sam Iiorton, was indicted at the fall term of said court, 1885, for the offense of cruelty to -animals.

Tried before IIon. John Purifoy. Mat Knowles was indicted, and tried in the Wilcox County Court, for selling intoxicating liquors in violation of a local statute. The case was tried by the court, on the pica of “ not guilty,'’ the defendant was found guilty, and afine of one thousand dollars adjudged against him.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster This was a bill filed by Claudius W. Powell, Jr., against George N. Powell, the administrator of the estate of orator’s father, Claudius W. Powell, Sr., and the sureties on the administrator’s bond, and was commenced on March 20th, 1883.

■ Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th August, 1884, by Albert Mitchell and Spencer Buckner, and averred that, some time in the year 1882, complainants purchased a lot in the city of Birmingham from the Elyton Land Company, on the installment plan, part of the purchase-money being paid at the time of purchase and the balance to be paid on time; that complainants borrowed the money with which to make the cash payment from Mrs. Fannie…

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadjden. This was a bill filed by II. T. Johnson and his wife, whose maiden name was Willie Caver, against Noah W. Cox, and was commenced October 5th, 1885.

Heard before the Hon. Jno. A. Foster. This was a bill filed by Harriet Reeves, the widow of Richard Reeves, deceased, praying for the allotment of dower and assignment of homestead in the lands of her late husband, being 230 acres; and for the recovery of crops grown thereon, and rent accruing pending her quarantine. The suit is against Brooks Bros., a partnership, and the heir at law, and was commenced April 22, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. S. IT. Spjrott. This was an action brought by Flouss & Kennedy, a partnership, against the Eureka Company, a domestic corporation, to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract set out in the complaint, which is in the following language : “ The plaintiffs claim of the defendant one thousand dollars for the breach of the condition of an agreement entered into by and between the plaintiffs and the defendant, which was in words and figures as…

<p> Petition in Probate Gourt, by Tenant in Common, for Sale of Peal and Personal Property for Distribution. </p> <p>1. Requisites of application. — In an application for the sale of property for division or distribution among several tenants in common (Code", §§ 3498, 3515), the petition must set forth the names and residences of all the parties interested in the property, and this statutory requirement, which is jurisdictional, includes the petitioner.</p> <p>2. Same.; death of co-tenant. — If the petition shows that one oí the tenants in common has died, it must show to whom his interest has descended, or in whom it has become vested, and such persons must be made parties.</p> <p>3. Administrator ad litem for deceased co-tenant.- — If it appears that the deceased tenant owed debts at the time of his death, the court should appoint an administrator ad litem to protect the interest of creditors.</p> <p>4. False claim does not oust jurisdiction. — -Although a partition or sale can not be decreed by the Probate Court, where an adverse claim or title is asserted (Code, § 3512), yet the jurisdiction of the court will not be ousted by a false assertion of an adverse claim by one of the defendants.</p> <p>5. Surviving husband necessary parly. — -The surviving husband of a deceased tenant in common is a proper and necessary party to proceedings for partition.</p>

Heard before the lion. T. J. Burton. A petition was filed in the Probate Court of Cleburne by John Blake and Henry Blake, propounding for probate what purported to be the last will and testament of Thomas Blake, deceased, in which proponents, who were his sons, were named as executors. Citations were issued to the next of kin, who appeared and filed their objections in writing to the probate of the will.

Tried before the lion. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by A. A. Odeu, surviving partner of Oden & Bibb, against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, to recover damages for the loss, by fire, of a bale of cotton shipped by plaintiff on defendant’s railroad from Ilartsell, in Morgan county, Ala., consigned to Trabrue & Co., Louisville, ICy., and was commenced on the 20th of March, 1885.

Tried before the Pión. T. M. Arrington. This was an action instituted by Julius C. Snow against V. Steiner & Bro., under sections 2222 and 2223 of the Code, to recover the statutory penalty of Steiner & Bro. for failing to enter satisfaction upon the margin of the record of a mortgage given them by the said Snow, for three months after payment, and request in writing to make such entry ; and was commenced July 31st, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was brought by Joseph B. Wilkinson against Joseph D. Stapp, to recover the possession of certain lands, described in the complaint, with damages for their detention ; and was commenced on 15th February, 1882.

Tried before the lion. II. D. Clayton. This was an action for damages brought by Thompson against appellants, and was commenced on 20th May, 1882.

Tried before tbe lion. Alexander Woods. This is an appeal by Washington Dickie as administrator of tbe estate of E. C. Dickie, deceased, and is taken from rulings of tbe court upon certain items of bis account upon final settlement of said estate. The character of the items, and tbe action upon them, sufficiently appear in the opinion rendered by this court.

Heard before Hon. Thomas Cobbs. This was a bill filed by Leroy E. Douglass against Frank S. Moody and Bernhard Friedman, and sought to have declared a mortgage, a deed absolute in its terms, which… Held: Justice Stone delivering the opinion, that if the transaction was shown to be a conditional sale, the bill was not framed so as to entitle the complainant to relief. See, also, Peeples v. Stolla, 57 Ala. 53.

Heard before Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed by F. M. Potts, and other creditors of H. T. Harwell, to set aside, as fraudulent, certain mortgages made by said Harwell to Gray & Knight, to his brother, Wm. O. Harwell, and to others, as being made to hinder, delay or defraud complainants and other creditors of said H. T. Harwell.

Tried before the ITon. S. H. Sprott. On the trial of this cause the plaintiffs introduced evidence to show that on or about the 26th day of November, 1881, they had a mare killed by the train on the Ala. Great Southern Railway about a half mile south-west of Boligee in Greene county ; that the mare was worth from sixty.five to seventy dollars, and that she was killed by the negligence of the defendant.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 7th July, 1884, by James N. Gilmer, against Josiah Morris and the firm of j. Morris & Co., hut afterwards amended so as to proceed against said Morris alone; and sought an account and redemption of sixty shares of stock in the Elyton Land Company, a private corporation, alleged to have been pledged and transferred by complainant to said Morris, on the 30th March, 1875 (as alleged in the original…

Appdal from the Talladega Circuit Court. Hon. LtsRoy F. Box, presiding.

Heard before the Hon. JonN A. Foster. The hill in this case was filed on 5th April, 1884, by the appellant, a married woman, by next friend, against her husband, the appellee, and sought a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, upon the grounds of his alleged intemperance, failure to properly maintain appellant, and cruelty and harsh usage — specific acts of which are averred in the bill.

Tried before Hon. James Aiken. This action was brought by J. D. Young against the East Alabama Railway Company, a domestic corporation, to recover a pool table, with the value of tbe use or hire of the same; and was commenced on 18th July, 1884. The plea of tbe defendant was the general issue. The evidence showed that the plaintiff purchased the poo] table in controversy from M. Mil-burn, for tbe agreed price of two hundred and fifty dollars.

Ax’peal from the Circuit Court of Bullock. Tried before the lion. IT. D. Clayton. This was an action for damages brought by William L. Tillman against J. W. De Lacy, for an alleged conversion by the latter of an engine, upon the following state of facts : Tillman sold a farm to W. D. and E. S. Grace, on time, taking the notes of the purchasers secured by mortgage upon the land sold.

Tried before lion. IT. D. Clayton. The appellee, Collins, recovered of the appellant, DeKalb Jones, a judgment in a justice court on two promissory notes executed by the latter to the former. On,appeal to the ensuing term of the Circuit Court the plaintiff filed his complaint declaring on said notes; and issue was joined on a number of special pleas filed by the defendant, averring, in substance : (1).

<p> Assumpsit. </p> <p>1. Bill of exceptions; agreement of counsel can not operate a,s. — An agreement of counsel can not operate as a substitute for a bill of exceptions.</p> <p>. 2. Same; tuhen court can not revise charge or judgment in absence, of.— The cause being submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts, in which it is stipulated that the court shall, on the admitted facts, give a general charge in favor of either parly, and render judgment as on verdict; that the party against whom he decides shall have an exception to the charge, and may prosecute an appeal; this court can not revise the charge or judgment, in the absence of a bill of exceptions properly signed.</p>

Tried before Hon. S. H. Spkott. This action was brought by John J. Adams & Co., a mercantile partnership of New Orleans, La., against James H.. Hyde ; and was commenced by original attachment issued upon affidavit made on 26th January, 1885, before the clerk of the Circuit Court of said county of Fayette.

Heard before the Hon. Jno. A. Foster. This was a bill in equity, filed on August 6th, 1883, by Robert F. Hardie against Geo. D. and G. W. Hooper, D. B. Mitchell and others, and sought to review and reverse, on the ground of error apparent, a decree which said court had rendered on November 19th, 1867, in a canse wherein the said I).

Tried before lion. J. E. Cobb. This action was brought by E. II. Grandin, as executor of John A. M. Battle, deceased, against ¥m. II. Ilurt, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint, with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 5th March, 1884. The defendant pleaded the general issue and adverse possession for ten years; and issue was joined on those pleas.

• Tried before Hon. James E. Cobb. ■ This was an action by James M. Stanfield to recover the amount of an arbitrators’ award, rendered in his favor, against R. Elirman; and was commenced on 7th September, 1885.

Tried before Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The opinion states the case. Charge No. 5, referred to in the opinion, was in the following language: “If the jury believe all the evidence in this case they will find for the defendant,”

Heard before Hon. Tiros. L. Cochran. In the matter of the last will and testament of Elizabeth Savage, deceased, which was propounded for probate on the 11th April, 1884, by James P. Spier, the executor and principal beneficiary named therein. The probate of the instrument was resisted by Leonard Moore and other relatives of the testatrix upon the grounds or specifications hereinafter set out.

Heard before the Hon. N. S. Graham. This was a bill in equity filed on 28th February, 1881, by W. J. Johnson against Barbara, William and David Kelly for the purpose indicated in the opinion.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The original bill in this case was filed 30th May, 1881, by Leiukauff & Strauss, and others, as creditors .at large of S. A. Myer & Co., an alleged mercantile partnership formerly engaged in business at Tuskaloosa, Alabama, composed of Solomon Myer and his wife, Sarah A. Myer, against the said S. A. Myer & Co. and Louis Frenkle, who was engaged in business at Mobile,.

Heard before lion. Thomas Cobbs. This was a bill in equity exhibited on 4th March, 1882, by Gfeorge C. Kelly against Horatio B. Tulane and Louis A.Bates, and alleged, in substance: That on a specified date complainant entered into an oral contract with II.

Heard before Hon. S. K. MoSpadden. The bill in this cause was filed on 3d March, 1885, by David Steele against John R. McDowell, Daniel S. Pritchett, Mrs. Harriet McDowell and Mrs. M. Burford, administratrix of P. D. Burford, deceased, for the purpose indicated in the opinion. The chancellor overruled demurrers interposed by the defendants to the bill, and his decree is here assigned as error.

Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham. This was a bill in equity exhibited on 9th November, 1881, by Kobert T. Fouche against Ebenezer J. Swain and others, its allegations presenting substantially the following case: Prior to the 14th day of January, 1869, the respondent, Swain, had purchased various tracts or parcels of land in said county with moneys belonging to the statutory separate estate of his wife, Margaret W. Swain, taking the titles in his own name.

Heard before the Hon. Tiros. Cobbs. This appeal is prosecuted by Josiah Allen, executor of Robert Allen, deceased, from the refusal of the chancellor to entertain a motion made by appellant to set aside and annul the sale of certain real estate, under execution against appellant personally, a previous execution against him in his representative capacity having been returned unsatisfied.

Tried before lion. J. E. Cobb. This was an action by Irving Raney against W. N. Raney for the recovery, in specie, of designated articles of agricultural produce; and was commenced on 29th April, 1885.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Tried before Hon. James E. Cobb.</p> <p>The opinion states the facts.</p>

Heard before Lion. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on 22d November, 1882, by Sarah Francis Winn and Martha Stella Woods, daughter and grand-daughter, respectively, of Lucinda Perteet, deceased, against Edward N. C. Snow, William A. Leland and John R. Kennedy, executors of the last will and testament of .RiHmni C. McLester, deceased. The purpose of the bill, and the facts disclosed by the record are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham. This was a bill in equity exhibited by Nancy A. Brantley and her children, Charles C., Adaline R., Sally and Kate Brantley, against their trustee, R. H. Dawson; John R. Me Dowell, the surviving surety on his bond, and Mrs. M. M. Burford, administratrix of M. M. Burford, deceased, who was McDowell’s co-surety on said bond.

Tried before Hon. S. H. Sbrott. The complaint in this case was in these words: “William Arnotte, plaintiff, v. H. T. Beggs & Son, a firm composed of H. T. Beggs and —. Beggs, defendants.” “ The plaintiff claims of the defendants the sum of sixty-nine and 30-100 dollars due by due bill made by defendants the 31st day of January, 1884, and payable on the — day of —, 1884, with interest.” A judgment by default was rendered against defendants at the Fall term of said court.

Heard before Hon. Thomas Cobbs. This cause was before the court at a former term. — Allen v. Terry, 73 Ala. 12'3. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion taken in connection with the previous report.

Tried before Hon. L. F. Box. This was an action for damages by Wiley Mitchell against J. M. Iiayes for an alleged false imprisonment and was commenced on 22d September, 1874. The appellant, Hayes, as marshal of the town of Oxford, and under color of his official authority as such, arrested the appellee, Mitchell, and incarcerated him in the calaboose, or town prison.

Heard before Hon. Jno. A. Foster. This was a bill in equity exhibited on 25th August, 1883, by Gertrude Watts, by her next friend, P. C. Watts, against Catherine McRae, Houghton & Lasseter', R. G. Wright, S. T. Frazer, and others, and averred in substance: That complainant’s father, Dawson McRae, died intestate in said county in September, 1868, leaving a large real and personal estate, comparatively free from debt; that respondent, Catherine McRae, the widow of decedent and…

Tried before Hon. James Aiken. This was an action for damages by Bellinger & Ralls, a mercantile firm of Gadsden, Ala., against Glenn, Brockway & Co., bankers ; and was commenced on 13th January, 1885. In the usual course of their business the defendants received, for collection, a draft, or bill of exchange, for a designated amount, drawn on the plaintiffs by the Ballard & Ballard Co., of Louisville, Ivy.

Heard before the Hon. Jno. A. Poster. The'bill in this cause sought a settlement of partnership accounts between the complainant, Robinson, and Caswell Garrett, late partners equally interested in the operation of a saw and grist-mill in said county; and was filed on 11th June, 1883. The respondent having answered, the chancellor ordered a reference of the matters of account to the register.

Heard before Hon. L. E. Box. This was a trial of the right of property in certain designated articles of merchandise, on which an attachment had been levied by Clayton & Webb, and a claim interposed, under the statute, by A. L. Higginbotham & Co. The cause was . tried on an issue made up under the statute, the trial resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in attachment.

<p> Application for Mandamus. </p> <p>1. JRepleader ; when award of, equivalent to granting new trial. — Where issue is joined on several insufficient special pleas and on the general issue, and there is a general verdict for the defendant on all the issues; while the bill of exceptions, purporting to set out all the evidence, shows that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, and that the defendant’s evidence only supported the insufficient pleas; the award of a repleader, if not technically correct, is the same in substance as granting a new trial, with leave to amend the pleadings, and accomplishes substantial justice.</p>

<p>Appeal from Randolph Chancery Court.</p> <p>Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham.</p>

Tried before the Hon John Moore. The appellants, Lewis Saunders, John Rentzand Jesse Johnson, defendants in the court below, were convicted at the Fall Term of said court, 1885, of the offense of arson in the first degree.

Tried before the Hon. S. IT. Sprout. This was an action to recover of appellant county damages for the loss of a mare, and personal injuries to appellee, caused'by the defective condition of a bridge, part of a public highway, over which plaintiff was passing when the loss and injuries were sustained.

Tried before ITon. Joi-in Moore. This was an action of trover, brought by Mrs. Mary Bell, against Adolph and Simon Steinhardt, to recover damages for the conversion of two bales of cotton; and was commenced on March 8th, 1883. Issue was joined on the plea of not guilty ; the trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

Heard before the Hon. N. S. Graham. This was a bill filed by Benjamin Jolly and others, who were the heirs at law of Caroline Elizabeth Neal and George W. Neal, against Isham H. Hobbs and Frank Neal.

Tried before the lion. Henry C. Speake. In the matter of certain salvage proceedings had before L. Bowers, a justice of the peace in said county, at the instance of John M. Crowder, who claimed to have taken up the property while adrift iu Paint Rock river; on the petition of John F. Fletcher & Co., claiming to be the owners of the property, for a writ of certiorari to remove the proceedings into the Circuit Court for revision.

Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham. The original bill in this case was exhibited, on 6th January, 1885, by Adaline A. Hinds, by next friend, against her husband, Daniel Hinds, charging his desertion and abandonment of complainant without making any provision for her maintenance, and praying that reasonable alimony be decreed her out of his estate.

Heard before Hon. IT. A. Sharpe. The bill in this canse was filed on the' equity side of said court by Christian Scharpff, the husband of Mary Scharpff, deceased, and the executor of her last will and testament.

Tried before Hon. L. F. Box. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion taken in connection with the previous report of the case in 67 Ala. (Street v. Nelson, p. 504).

Heard before Hon. Thomas Co bus. The-bill in this case was exhibited on 1st Juty 1882, by Mrs. Elizabeth C. Reynolds as sole complainant, her children being subsequently made co-complainants, by amendment, against H. M. Caldwell and her husband, William M. Reynolds, and alleged, in substance: That on a date not specified, the respondent, Reynolds, and George E. Camp, leased from the Elyton Land Company, a domestic corporation, certain designated lots in the city of…

S. H. Sprott. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion, with the addition of the charges therein referred to.

Heard before Hon. John A. Foster. .The original bill in this case was exhibited on 16th September, 1884, by T. J. Adams against John M. Sims, Malissa M. Sims, N. M. Bayzor and Lucinda Bayzor. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited 16 Ala. 87; 72 Ala. 303 ; 67 Ala. 397; 63 Ala. 363 ; 72 Ala. 210 ; 70 Ala. 318; lb. 460.

Heard before Hon. James W. Taylor. On 9th March, 1885, William B. Glass, for himself, and as administrator of the estate of Samuel T. Glass, his brother, a minor, recently deceased in the State of Texas, filed his petition in the Probate Court of Marengo county, averring that Williamson Glass, who was the guardian of petitioner during his infancy and of said Samuel T. Glass during his life-time, had never made a final settlement of his guardianship of his said wards, William…

Heard before Hon. Jno. A. Foster. — 1. The Chancery Court erred in allowing the amendments to the original bill without notice to the defendant as required by Buie of Chancery Practice No. 47, Subd. 3. Folly v. Bass, admfr, 63 Ala. 387. (2.) The decree is erroneous because service of the amended bill was not perfected on the defendant. Masterson v. Master-son, 32 Ala. 437; Alston v. Alston, 34 Ala. 15. (3).

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. This was a bill in equity exhibited on 2nd July, 1883, by Ordway & McGuire and judgment creditors of J. H. Ward & Co., against the said J. IT.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case sought the enforcement of the complainants’ alleged mechanic’s liens, and was filed on 20th February, 1884, by Daimwood & Norris, and others, artisans and material men, against W. J. Fellows and Alice L. Walker, trustee, and her children and cestuis que t/rusi, named in'the deed of trust, made an exhibit to the bill.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This was a statutory real action in the nature of ejectment brought by Wade H. England against Susan W. Hatch, to recover certain lands particularly described in the complaint, and was commenced on 25th April, 1884. The defendant pleaded not guilty, the statute of limitations of ten years, and adverse possession, for three years, with a suggestion of the erection of valuable improvements.

Heard before Hon. Thomas Cobbs. Reference is had to the previous repoi’t of this case in 71 Ala. 248, for a statement of the facts. The present appeal is based upon the overruling by the primary court of certain motions made by the appellant after remandment, — the nature of which is indicated in the opinion.

Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham. This was a bill of interpleader exhibited on 26th September, 1873, by William J. Alexander against W. J. Borden and William II, Smith, the case made by the record, so far as essential to this report, being substantially as follows: The complainant, as sheriif of the county of Cleburne, received from the register of the Chancery Court of Randolph, twelve several executions in favor of Margaret E. Smith against her former husband, Jeremiah…

Heard before Hon. Jno. A. Poster. The bill in this cause was filed by the appellant, a married woman, by next friend, against her husband, the appellee, on 18th March, 1885, and sought a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The case made by its allegations is sufficiently disclosed by the opinion.

<p> Bill i/n Equity to Enjoin Action of Ejectment, and to Remove Cloud on Title. </p> <p>1. Conveyance of homestead by married m,an without signature and assent of wife. — An absolute conveyance of his homestead by a married man, without the voluntary signature and assent of his wife, is a nullity, and an executory agreement to convey is equally null and inoperative.</p> <p>2. Title of purchaser at sheriff’s sale under judgment in attachment' relates bach to levy of attachment. — A purchaser at sheriff’s sale, under a judgment in an attachment case, acquires a title which dates back to the levy of the attachment, and overrides an intermediate conveyance by the defendant.</p> <p>3. Same (this case). — Where the owner of a homestead, having made an executory Sfile, in which his wife did not join, afterwards removed from the premises, and an attachment was then levied on the land; a purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, under the judgment in the attachment sale, acquires a title which must prevail over that of an assignee of the title-bond, to whom a conveyance was executed after the levy of the attachment.</p>

Heard before the Hon: Thomas Cobbs. This was a bill in equity by Thomas Wildsmith and his wife,. Mnschoga Wildsmith, against William Tracy, C. C. Seals and James T. Fitzgerald ; and was filed on 13th May, 1884.

Tried before Hon, W. E. Clarke. This was an action of trover brought by J. J. McMillan against C. B. Wooten for the alleged conversion of a “ mouse-colored mule;” and was commenced on 27th December, 1884. Issue was joined on the plea, of the general issue, the trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for the defendant.

<p>Appeal from the Chancery Court of Perry.</p> <p>Heard before Hon. Thomas Cobbs.</p>

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpauden. The bill in this case was filed by the American Mortgage Company,-of Scotland, limited, of Edinburg, incorporated under the laws of Scotland, and doing business in Alabama, against the appellants, James A. Gladden and his wife, Martha Gladden, and prayed for the foreclosure of a mortgage executed to complainants by Gladden and wife, upon certain lands therein described, belonging to the said James A. Gladden.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. The appellant in this case, a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of New York, and doing business in this State, complaining of the taxes assessed against it by the State Board of Assessment, for and during the year, 1884, filed its petition for a certiorari to remove the proceedings into the Circuit Court, asking that they be set aside and quashed, as being illegal, unauthorized and void.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. This bill was filed by John H. Ward and James W. Ward, against Elizabeth Johnson and her husband, Nelson D. Johnson ; and was commenced Feb. 2d, 1883.

Tried before the Hon. Wh. E. Clarke. This was an action of ejectment brought originally by Lorenzo M. Wilson, as trustee of certain bondholders, and John R. Simpson, as superintendent of wharves, against Hannibal Smith, Price Williams, Sr., and others, to recover possession of certain wharf property in the city of Mobile, fully described in the complaint.

Tried before the Hon. Jon. Haralson. This was an appeal taken from the refusal of the judge of the City Court of Selma to grant the petition of the appellant, •John Stanfill, praying for a writ of certiorari, directing the proceedings had in the Court of County Revenue of Dallas county, set forth in said petition, to be brought up for review in said City Court; and originated as follows: A petition signed by Jere Johnson and twelve others, was filed with the probate judge of…

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speaks. This was an action brought by William Gr. Bobinson against Bansom Harlow and Harrison L. Morris to recover damages for a trespass alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the lands of plaintiff, on and after the 12th of March, 1884. The plea of defendants was “ not guilty,” upon which issue was joined.

• Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham. The bill in this case was filed by Harry J. Gillam and Mary J. Gillam, the heirs-at-law of Harry Gillam, deceased, and charged that one William M. A. Mitchell was indebted to the estate of their father by promissory notes, with John Rowe and Salmon Washburne-as sureties thereon; that on the 19th of March, 1866, the said Mitchell, “ being desirous to secure the said John Rowe against loss by virtue of his suretyship on said notes,” executed…

<p> Certiorari of Justice’s Judgment to Circuit Court. </p> <p>1. Action by married woman on note payable to herself. — In an action by a married woman in her own name, on a promissory note payable to herself, a plea averring that the note “ was given for certain accounts transferred to plaintiff directly by her husband,” but not averring that the transfer was made during coverture, does not negative the fact that the note is held as part of her statutory estate’, and is fatally defective.</p>

Appear from Lowndes Circuit Court. Tried before lion. John Moore. This action was brought- by the children, heirs at law of Jane C. McMeans, against James G. McQueen, to recover a tract of land lying in Lowndes county, with damages for its detention; and was commenced December 9th, 1884. The defendant pleaded : 1. The general issue. 2. The statute of limitations of ten years. 3. Adverse possession. 4. Statute of limitations of twenty years. Upon these pleas issue was joined.

<p> Motion to stril&e Bill of Exceptions from Record. </p> <p>1. Bills of exceptions; signed after adjournment of term. — A. presiding judge has no authority to sign a bill of exceptions after the adjournment of the court for the term at which the exceptions were taken, except by the written agreement of counsel.</p> <p>2. Buie for computing lime in which act to be done. — The rule for computing the'time within which an act is stipulated to be done, is to exclude the first day and include the 'last. An agreement that a bill of exceptions might be signed within sixty days after the adjournment of court, adjournment being on May 2d, the sixty days expired on the 1st of July following.</p>

Heard before the Hon. N. S. Graham. The proceedings in this cause grew out of a petition filed in the Chancery Court on the 6th April, 1885, by Isabella Presley, as administratrix, in which it was recited that at the Spring term, 1876, of said Chancery Court a decree had been rendered in favor of said Isabella Presley, as administratrix, against William McLean, on a bill filed for the foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the defendant on certain lands therein described, to…

Tried before the Hon. H. D. Clayton. The facts in this case fully appear in the opinion of the court. cited: 1. Gr. on Ev. §§ 558, 569, 572; Asl&ew Bros v. Steiner et al, 76 Ala. 218, upon the insufficiency of the proof, offered by plaintiff; of the execution of the alleged deed from Torrey to Eason. 2.

Tried before lion. James Aiken. N. L. Powell, a merchant in the town of Cullman, sold his stock of merchandise, on the 7th of November, 1884, to Absalom Little, who took possession of the goods.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. This action was brought by L>. H. Baker against A. W. Smith, and was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 14th Janury, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed by Win. IT. Tryon & Co., and others, as creditors of Robt. IT. Walker, on the 24th January, 1884.

Tried before Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Francis M. Black against W. W. Wilkinson for the recovery of damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, by reason of his wrongful discharge from the service of the defendant, and was commenced October 7th, 1884.

Heard before Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed in February, 1885, by John S. Espy in his own behalf, and for such other creditors of Clark, Hart & Co. as should join in said suit, against Hugh M: Comer, as surviving partner of Bates & Comer, Henry O. Hart and others; and prayed that a mortgage executed by said Hart to said Comer be declared a general assignment for the benefit of all the creditors of the partnership of Clark, Hart & Co., of which said Hart…

Tried before the Hon. H. D. Clayton. This action was brought by appellant against appellee to recover damages on a detinue bond. To that suit appellee put in a' plea claiming a set-off which is fully set out in the opinion of the court.

Heard before Hon. John A. Foster, The bill in this case was filed by appellee, the Alabama Warehouse Company, against IT. L. Jones and John E. Lawson, and seeks to have declared a mortgage executed by said Jones to Lawson fraudulent as to complainant. The bill sets out that IT.

<p> Petition to Vacate and Set Aside Sale of Land Under Execution Issued on Money Decree. </p> <p>1 Interlocutory decree from which appeal lies; what is not. — The overruling of a demurrer, to a petition to set aside a sale of land under execution, no other order being made in the case, is not one of the interlocutory decrees from which an appeal is given by statute (Code, §§ 3916, 3918, 3921-2); and an appeal from such decree will be dismissed, ex mero motu, by the court.</p>

<p> Motion to Dismiss Appeal. </p> <p>1. Appeal by married woman, without security for costs. — From any judgment or decree “subjecting to sale the separate estate of a married woman, or any part thereof,” she may prosecute an appeal without giving security for the costs, on making an affidavit of her inability to do so (Code, § 3930); but the statute does not apply, where a married woman institutes a statutory claim suit to try the right to property on which an execution against her husband has been levied, and the issue is found against her.</p>

Heard before the Hon. Jno. A. Foster. This was a bill filed by Jas. P. Nall and others to redeem certain mortgaged property, claiming that there was usury in the debt secured by the mortgage, and that the debt, purged of usury, had been paid.

4. Jurisdiction. — No jurisdiction can be derived from section 3757 of the present Code. Appeal from the Chancery Court of Eussell. Heard before the Hon. Jno. A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed by Mrs. Sarah J. Jeffries to enjoin an action of detinue, commenced in the Circuit Court of Eussell county by the appellant, M. T. Bergan, who sought to recover certain personal property, named in a mortgage executed to him, signed with the names of appellee and her husband.

Tried before Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. This was an action of trover brought by Martha J. Hudson and Loumalia Pin, against Emanuel Adler to recover damages for the conversion of a mule and cow ; and was commenced on Eeb. 15, 1885. Issue was joined on the plea of not guilty ; the trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs.

Tried before Hon. J. E. Cobb. The appellant, Buck Vance, and Bill Wyatt were jointly indicted at the Spring term, 1885, of said court for the offence of grand larceny — the subject of the alleged larceny being two hogs the property of one George Randolph. The said Wyatt escaped from custody shortly after his arrest, and the appellant was convicted of the offence charged, under a plea of not guilty, at the ensuing Fall term of said court.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The hill in this cause was filed by appellee as the* administrator de bonis non and cum testaments annexo of Samuel W. Coon, deceased, seeking to enforce a charge of three thousand dollars upon lands devised by his testate, Samuel W. Coon, to Mildred A, Barclay for life, subject at her death to said charge of three thousand dollars to be paid to the personal representative of said Coon, for the benefit of his estate.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 20th March, 1885, by William S. McLean, against J. J. Linn, and sought to enforce an alleged vendor’s lien on land for the unpaid purchase-money.

Tried before the Hon. W. E. Clarke. This was an action for damages commenced by L. L. Belsher, against Freeman T. Dicks, for an alleged breach of a written agreement made by the defendant, with plaintiff, on the 6th day of December, 1883.

Tried before TIon. James E. Cobb. Jamés M. Bell brought suit at the October term, 1885, of Chilton Circuit Court, against J. L. Sampey for' damages, and while said cause was pending in said court, the parties entered into a written agreement to leave the matters in controversy between them to certain named persons, whose decision should be entered as the judgment of the Circuit Court in the cause.

Tried before the lion. James E, Cobb- This action was brought by appellees to recover of the appellants, who were defendants in the court below, the land described in the complaint and damages for the detention thereof. Some of the defendants disclaimed, and others plead not guilty. Upon the trial the jury found for the plaintiffs the land sued for, and gave damages for its detention. A writ of possession was ordered to issue.

. Tried before the Hon. James E. Cobb. This action was brought by James M. Elliott, as surviving partner of the former firm of Cothran & Elliot, against A. C. Dyche and B. F. Reynolds, to recover certain lands described in the complaint, and was originally commenced on the 10th December, 1879, was tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box, and brought by appeal to this court, reversed and remanded.

<p> Action on the Case for Malicious Prosecution. </p> <p>1. Statute of limitations; new action commenced within twelve months after reversal of former judgment. — By express statutory provision (Code, § 3235), a new action may be commenced within twelve months after the reversal of a judgment in a former action, notwithstanding the lapse of time otherwise sufficient to effect a bar; and if the statute of limitations is pleaded to the new action, a replication setting up the former action, reversal, &c., is sufficient.</p> <p>2. Same; when former action was vexatious, or instituted during pend-ency of another. — This statute is remedial, and must be liberally construed ; and though the former action was instituted while another was pending on the same causé of action, and was characterized by this court as vexatious and oppressive, notwithstanding the premature commencement of the first, this does not avoid the replication, nor take the case out of the statutory exception.</p> <p>3. Construction of statute as to cases within letter, hut not within spirit. There are cases which require the courts to disregard the letter of a statute, when manifestly opposed to its spirit; but, to justify this, there must be a moral conviction, based on the unreasonableness of the application sought to be made, that the legislature could not have intended such result, and it is not enough that the statute appears to be not promotive of the best interests of society or individuals.</p>

Tried before Hon. John P. Hubbard. This was an action brought by Joseph A. Bates in the court below, to recover damages of the defendant, P. A. Motes, the appellant here, for an alleged malicious prosecution ; there having been a previous trial of the cause, and a reversal, on appeal, by this court.

Heard before Hon. P. G. Wood.. This was an appeal from the final settlement of Anna M. Gayle, as administratrix, with letters testamentary annexed, of the estate of Mary L. Gayle, deceased, had in the Probate Court of Dallas county; and arises out of certain rulings of said court, adverse to appellant, hereinafter stated.

John H. Carter, with a number of others, united in a petition to the Hon. James Aiken, judge of the 9th judicial circuit, praying a writ of certiorari, directed to the Court of County Commissioners of Cullman county, in said judicial circuit, and returnable to the Circuit Court of said county of Cull-man, praying that the proceedings of the Court of County Commissioners, in reference to matters in said petition specifically set forth, might be reviewed and corrected.

<p> Dill in Dquity for Partition. </p> <p>1. Bill forpavtüion by tenant for life; parlies to. — A tenant ior life may maintain a bill in equity for the partition of lands, and it is the better practice to make all the persons having an interest, tenanls for life and remaindermen, parties to the suit.</p> <p>2. Remainderman necessary party. — If a remainderman is not made á party to the suit, his rights are not affected by any decree that may be rendered; and if an infant remainderman is made a party, but is not properly brought before the court, the decree will be reversed on error, no matter how the question is presented.</p> <p>3. Minors; how brought before the court. — When the complainant is the father of an infant defenclant, whose mother is dead, service of process should be made on her general guardian, if she has any; and if process is served on the person who is averred to be her guardian, but the bill is not sworn to, and there is no affidavit of the fact that he is such guardian, and no proof of the fact, the infant is not properly before the court.</p> <p>4. Appearance; record must show throughout. — Where the defendants who have answered are actually present in court, either in person or by their solicitors or guardians ad litem, at the allowance of an amendment, tlrey shall be deemed to have notice thereof; but the entries of record, made at the time, must show tlieir presence, and when they do not, a recital in a subsequent decree pro confesso, taken before the register, is not sufficient.</p> <p>5. Tenants in common ; use and occupation. — At common law, a tenant in common was not liable to his co-tenant for use and occupation, unless there was an actual eviction, or an agreement to pay rent; and the English statute (4th and 5th Anne) changing the rule, having been enacted after the settlement of this country, is not of force with us.</p> <p>6. Same ; account for rents received. — For rents actually received one tenant in common is liable to account to his co-tenant; but, when the rents were received from a tenant to whom necessary advances to make a crop were supplied, such advances, and other necessary costs and expenses incurred, must be deducted from the gross amount received.</p>

<p>Bill in Eqidty by Devisees against Administrator de bonis non, for Recovery of Land sold by him, and for an Account.</p> <p>1. Decree of insolvency; when not conclusive on heirs and distributees. A decree o£ the Probate Court declaring an estate insolvent, and subsequent proceedings based on that decree, rendered and had prior to the enactment of the statute approved December 4,1878 (Sess. Acts.1878-9, p. 69), are not conclusive on the heirs and distributees, legatees and devisees, who were not parties, and had no right to file objections to claims, nor to contest the administrator’s accounts.</p> <p>2. Account; bill for, by legatees and devisees against administrator of estate declared and settled as insolvent; what necessary to be shown — To sustain a bill by legatees and devisees, against the administrator of an estate which has been declared and settled as insolvent, for an account of property specially devised and bequeathed to them, they must show that, on a proper accounting, after paying all the debts properly filed against thh insolvent estate, assets will remain to which they are entitled.</p> <p>3. Administrator without interest cannot purchase at his own sale. When an administrator has no interest in the estate which, he represents, he cannot become, either by himself, or jointly with another person, the purchaser of lands sold by himself under a probate decree, but such sale is voidable at the election of the heirs or devisees seasonably expressed; and the confirmation of the sale by the Probate Court does not prevent the application of the equitable doctrine.</p> <p>4. Laches not imputed to infant; when election seasonably expressed. As a general rule, laches will not be imputed to an infant; and where several children, seeking to set aside a purchase of lands by an ad.ministrator at his own sale, file their bill within two years after the eldest had attained his majority, their election is seasonably expi-essed.</p> <p>5. Who not purchasers for valuable consideration. — Neither a voluntary donee, nor a grantee by quit claim only, is entitled to protection as a purchaser for valuable consideration; and a purchaser at a sale made by an administrator stands in no better condition.</p> <p>6. When not necessary to set aside order of sale. — In setting aside a sale under a probate decree, where the administrator himseli became the purchaser, it -is not necessary or proper to set aside the order of sale, if regular; but the court may, if necessary, direct a new sale under it.</p>

Heard before Hon. Jon. Haralson. The bill in this case was filed in the City Court of Selma, sitting in equity, by Herman Long, against William B. Gill, and prayed an injunction against the continuance of an alleged obstruction by said Gill, of a' certain right of way belonging to complainant, and sought the removal of said obstruction, a small brick building, erected by defendant in said right of way.

Apiusal from Butler Circuit Court. Tried before lion. John P. Hubbard. This was an action brought by ¿Joseph Harrison against Joseph R. Jones for the recovery of an amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff for services rendered as a physician in attending the wife of the defendant; and was commenced on the 7th October, 1884, and the services were claimed to have been rendered during the months of April and May of that year.

Tried before Hon. T. M. Arrington. This action was brought by Henry T. Graves against John D. Wright to recover damages for the breach of a lease contract entered into by and between the defendant and one W. D. Graves.

Tried before lion. S. II. Sprott. This was an action brought by Daniel B. Binford, a minor, by his next friend, against W. P. Owings, sheriff of Pickens county, and J. M. Noland, J. H. Curry, Enoch Easterling, S. C. Nabers and II. B. Ohappelle, sureties on his official bond, and sought the recovery of damages for the breach of the condition of said bond. The averments of the complaint are substantially that said sheriff, having in his hands a Fi. Fa. against Wm.

Clair Circuit Court. Tried before Gideon C. Ellis, Esq., special judge. This was an action of trespass, brought by Steele & Yandergrift, partners, against William Dunlap, for an alleged injury to certain personal property mortgaged to the plaintiffs. Defendant interposed the plea of not guilty.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 12th April, 1884, by Henry Warten, as a creditor of Luke Matthews, against the said Matthews, together with A. C. Legg and W. B. Tanner, the latter being sued both individually and as trustee; and sought to have two mortgages, executed by said Matthews to said Legg and Tanner respectively, declared and enforced as a general assignment, enuring to the benefit of all the creditors of said Matthews…

Tried before Hon. ¥m. E. Clarke. This action was brought by Amos N. McLeod, as administrator of the estate of Daniel McLeod, deceased, against William Johnson and Rab. Etheridge, to recover “one lot of staves and saw-logs,” and was commenced on the 25th day of September, 1885. The defendants filed pleas, denying the plaintiff’s right to maintain the suit, claiming that the defendants held the land from which the staves and logs were taken, under a lease from Thos.

Tried before the Hon. Jon Haralson. ' This was an action of trover to recover damages for the alleged conversion of certain articles of office furniture consisting of table, desk, chairs, &c.; and was commenced on 30th August, 1884. Issue was joined on the plea of the general issue, the trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

Tried before lion. Wm. E. Clarke. John F. Murphy recovered a judgment against Barron and H. E. Tait, at the fall term 1885 of Clarke county Circuit Court, and an execution on said judgment, issued on the 24th of November, 1885, was levied, by the sheriff, on four yokes of oxen, one front-cart and one tail-cart, as the property of J. W. Barron and Ii. E. Tait, the defendants in execution.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. This was an application by petition, on the relation of A. D. Sayre, clerk of the City Court of Montgomery, for a mandamus to R. H. Dawson, as president of the board of inspectors of convicts, requiring him to deliver certified bills of costs, as made out by the petitioner and approved by the presiding judge of the City Court, to the contractor to whom the several convicts were assigned and delivered.

Tried before the Hon. ¥m. E. Clarke. This action was brought by Jacob Levinshon, against Joseph B. Edwards, as the surviving partner of the late firm of Chamberlain & Co., to recover the amount due on four written instruments, called “ Seamen’s Advance Notes,” of which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner by assignment, and which were directed to said Chamberlain & Co., with whom money was deposited to pay them when they became due.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed by Louisa Bolman and her married daughters, Caroline Kramer and Emma Pfieffer, against Gibson Y. Overall, as the executor of Augusta Lohman, deceased, November 6th, 1886. The averments of the bill sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Tried before lion. Jno. P. Hubbard. This was an action of trover by Frank Gr. Taylor against J. C. Haas to recover damages for the alleged conversion of fifty bushels of cotton seed.

Tried before Hon. W. E. Clarice. This action was brought against the appellant, a domestic corporation, on 31st October, 1884, by William F. Johnston, administrator of the estate of Dora E. Connor, and guardian of William T. and Walter M. Connor, minor children of William D. Connor, deceased: and was founded on a policy of life insurance which the said W. D. Connor effected with appellant corporation for the benefit of said Dora E. and her children on 3d December, 1872.

Tried beford Hon. John P. Hubbard. This was an action for money had and received commenced in February, 1883, by Thomas. F. Potter against Boyett & Wimberly, a mercantile firm of Greenville, Ala.

Tried before the Hon. James E. Cobb. This was an action brought by Thomas M. Fancher, Henry C. Fancher and John C. Williams, partners doing business under the name of Fancher Bros. & Co., against the Bibb Furnace Company, a partnership operating a furnace in Bibb county, and was commenced Oct. 14,1882.

Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham. This was a bill in equity exhibited on 23d March, 1883, by Thomas G. Jenkins, administrator of the estate of W. J. McLean, deceased, against Mary Mathews, and sought to establish and enforce a vendor’s lien on certain lands sold and conveyed to the respondent by said McLean in his life-time. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tried before the lion. Tiros. M. Arrington. This was an action brought by George W. Townsend against the city of Montgomery, suing for damages alleged to have been done his property on the corner of Goldthwaite and Ilerron streets in said city, by reason of cutting down the sidewalk contiguous thereto.

Heard before Hon. Jno. A. Foster. This was a bill filed by Andrew IT. Gardner, as administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed, of Garland T. Gardner, deceased, against R. U. Kelso and Yirgil IT. Gardner, and prayed the sale of certain lands which said defendants had purchased from the estate of said Garland T. Gardner, but for which they had not paid, and against which a vendor’s lien for unpaid purchase-money was sought to be enforced.

<p>Appeal from Butler Chancery Court.</p> <p>Heard before the Hon. Jno. A. Foster.</p> <p>The opinion states the facts.</p>

Tried before lion. IT. O. Speake. This action was brought in July, 1885, by Susan C. King, the widow and administratrix of James L. King, deceased, against Benjamin ITenkie, William Wilson and Clarence Doss, the former of whom was the proprietor, the two latter being his clerks and employees, of a bar room, or drinking saloon in the city of Tuscnmbia in said county.

Tried before Hon. Jon. Haralson. This was a suit by Solomon Lehman on a promissory note executed to him by Edward Kahn and Alexander Katzenberg, as partners comprising the mercantile firm of Ed. Kahn &Co., and was commenced in August, 1884. The note sued on bore date of 30th November, 1878, and became due and payable on 1st November, 1879.

Tried before the lion. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by J. H. Allen, J. O. Bush and T. IT. West, as partners under the firm name of Allen, Bush & West, against James E. Ellis, the sheriff of Conecuh county, and the sureties on his official bond, in which the plaintiffs seek to recover damages of the defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct of the sheriff in levying an attachment against Cooper & Herrington on goods belonging to plaintiffs.

Heard before Hon. Jno. A. Foster. The original bill in this cause was. filed on 21st January, 1886, by Simon Gassenkeimer, administrator of the estate of ■Jacob Levy, deceased, against Marshall H. Molton and Mrs. A. A. Ware, the case made by the record, so far as essential to this report, being substantially as follows: The complainant’s intestate, Jacob Levy, on 12th February, 1875, obtained a judgment in the City Court- of Montgomery against the respondent, Mrs. A. A.…

Tried before the Hon. James E. Cobb. Pleasant H. Helton sued out an attachment against Hill, Fontaine & Co., commission merchants, residing in Memphis, Tenn., and executed the same by the service of writs of garnishment on certain creditors of the defendants residing in Jackson county, Ala. The plaintiff claimed of the defendants the proceeds of fourteen bales of cotton, sold by them on his account and which they failed to pay to him.

Tried before the Hon. II. C. Speake. This was a statutory action for the unlawful detainer of certain realty in the city of Huntsville, commenced in a justice’s court on the 1st April, 1882, by Jno. F. McDevitt and wife against John and Benjamin Lambert, and removed by appeal, at the instance of the defendants, into the Circuit Court.

- Heard before the Hon. S. X. MoSpadden. This was a bill in equity, exhibited on the 5th September, 1884, by K. E. Spragins, administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed of Samuel W. Coons, deceased, against Caleb, Mildred and John Toney, Nina Barclay Humpe, Geo. E. Humpe, Jr., and Alma Barclay. The facts disclosed by the record, as between' the original parties to the cause, and the object and purpose of the bill, are stated in the opinion.

Heard before the Hon. N. S. Graham. — 1. In October, 1875, James A. Dudley, being tax-collector of Chilton County, executed his bond, with Moses Simmons and. others as sureties thereon. In May, 1877, said Dudley made default in the payment of county taxes, for the amount of which default the county, in 1878, recovered judgment against Dudley and his sureties. Execution was issued on this, judgment against Simmons, who paid it and took a transfer of the judgment to himself.

Appear from Marshall Chancery Court. Heard before the Hon. H. C. Speaks. Held: on demurrer, that the policy in this case being in favor of one child only, whilst the assured had a wife and several children, did not fall within the provision of the statute (§§ 2733-4, Rev. Code, 1876), the contention now is, whether the proceeds of the policy in question can be subjected to the demand of the complainant creditor…

Tried before Hon. H. O. Spbake. This was a statutory real action in the nature of ejectment? commenced on the 20th day of February, 1883, by Henry Wartensleben against Mary A. Haithcock to recover possession of a tract of land, particularly described in the complaint, together with damages for its detention. L. W. Humes, as landlord of the tenant in possession, was subsequently, upon his own motion, let in to defend, and issue was joined upon the plea of the general issue.

Tried before the Hon. H. O. Speaks. This action was brought by Benj. L. Allen, Maria Allen, and James W. Allen against the Commercial Fire Insurance Company, of Montgomery, Ala., to recover the damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs by fire upon a brick store house in the town of Athens, and against which said damage they claimed to be insured by the defendant.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Spbott. The appellee was arrested and convicted by the mayor, for a violation of an ordinance of the town of Greensboro, entitled “an ordinance to regulate the sale of imported secondhand or cast-off clothing and other goods,” which provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell or otherwise deal in second-hand or cast-off garments, blankets, bedding or bed-clothing in said town of Greensboro ; provided that this ordinance…

Heard before the Hon. W. C. Oliver. . The contentions in this case arose on the final settlement of the accounts of Thomas Clark, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of John M. Eubank, deceased. The case has been already before this court, (78 Ala. 73), and the facts fully reported. The only new aspects presented on this appeal are the rulings of the Probate Court upon different items of the administrator’s account.

Tried before the lion. S. Ii. Spjrott. This action was brought by Percy Hairston and Ada Hairston, children of Mrs. Mary IT. Hairston, and grand children of Mrs. Ann Womack, against Andrew J. Dobbs, to recover the possession of a store-house and lot at Haysville station in said county, with damages for its detention; and was ■commenced on the 16th February, 1884.

App3cal from the Circuit Court of Greene. Tried befoi’e the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This is the second appeal in this case during the present term. See the case reported ante, p. 589. The proceedings on the second trial, now presented for revision, are stated in the opinion of the court.

Heard before Hon. S. K. MoSpadden. This was a bill in equity filed on July 1, 1885, by Lewis R. Powell, against his wife, Sarah Ann Powell, and sought a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, on the ground of adultery. The nature of the allegations contained in the bill of complainant and the answer of the respondent, and the character of the testimony are sufficiently shown in the opinion.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Spkott. This action was brought by John W. Arnold against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, a domestic corporation, and was commenced on the 2d July, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. W. E. Clarke. This action was brought by Otto Stoelker against Council B. Wooten, to recover damages for the conversion by the defendant of the crops grown on plaintiff’s plantation in Marengo county, for the years 1883 and 1881, upon which plaintiff had a lien for rents, and was commenced February 9th, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was brought by Eliza Chapman against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, a domestic corporation, and was commenced 28th July, 1884. The complaint avers that on the 15th August, 1883, while plaintiff was walking in a path near the track of defendant’s road, an engine on said road threw a cow from the track and against the plaintiff, whereby she was greatly injured.