Volume 82 — Alabama Reports

Ebom the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Abbington. This is the third time this case has been before this court. — 79 Ala. 9 ; 81 Ala. 20. The defendants, Jule Jordan and Handy Jordan, were jointly indicted and tried for the murder of Albert York, “by shooting him with a pistol,” as alleged in the first count of the indictment; and “ by cutting him with a knife,” as alleged in the second count.

From the Circuit Court of Monroe. Tried before the Hon. Wm. E. Clarke. The defendant in this case, Charley Tatum, was indicted for the murder of James A. Stewart, by shooting him with a gun; pleaded not guilty, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

From the Circuit Court of Calhoun. Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. The defendant in this case, Green Nabors, a freedman, was indicted for an assault on Celia Alexander, a colored woman, with the intent to murder her ; was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years.

From the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. O. J.- Semmek. The defendant in this case, A..J- Watson, was indicted for the murder of Albert Reynolds, by shooting him with a pistol; was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty, convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of five years.

From the Circuit Court of Jackson. Tried before tlie Hon. John B^ Tally. The defendant in this case, James Carter, was indicted for the murder of Daniel Smith, by shooting bim with a pistol; was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty, convicted of manslaughter in the first degiee, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of seven years.

From the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The defendant in this case, John Floyd, a freedman, was indicted for tbe murder of John B. Pugh, a policeman of the city of Montgomery ; was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty, convicted of murder in tbe first degree, and sentenced to tbe penitentiary for life.

From the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hou. O. J. Semmes. The defendant m this case, Prestou Jenkins, was indicted for the murder of Andrew Silas, “ by cutting him with a knife;” pleaded not guilty to the indictment, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of ten years.

From the Circuit Court of Cleburne, The record does not show the name of the presiding judge. , The defendant in this case, Marcus Johnson, was indicted lor the larceny of a barrel of flour, the personal property of Thomas E. Luke ; and the indictment also contained counts for receiving and concealing the barrel of flour, knowing that it had been stolen.

<p>From the City Court of Montgomery.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington.</p> <p>cited Ivef v. State, 61 Ala. 58 ; Fisher v. State, 43 Ala. 17; State v. Whit, 4 Jones, N. C. Law, 349.</p>

From the Circuit Court of Butler. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. The defendant in this case, Pleas. McKee, was indicted for the murder of Charles Poole, by striking him with a stick; pleaded not guilty, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of ten years. The trial was had at an adjourned term of the court, regularly called and held.

From tbe Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard.

<p> Prosecution for Abusive, Insulting or Obscene Language, near Dwelling-Kouse, in presence or hearing of Family. </p> <p>1. Constituents of offense. — A conviction may be had forgoing near the dwelling-house of another and using abusive, insulting or obscene language in the presence or hearing of his family (Code, § 4203; Sess. Acts 1880-1, p. 30), although the defendant was at the time on his own adjacent premises, and used the words in ordinary conversation with visitors, without any intention of being overheard by his neighbors.</p>

Prom tlie Circuit Court of Marengo. Tried before ¥i. H. Tayloe, an attorney of the court, selected under tlie statute (Code, § 664), on account of the disqualification of the presiding judge.

<p>From the Circuit Court of Chambers.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley.</p> <p>cited ffinclier v. State, 58 Ala. 215 ; Atiuell v. State, 63 Ala. 65 ; McHugh v. State, 31 Ala. 317; Dabney v. Mitchell, 66 Ala, 495.</p>

From the Circuit Court of Monroe. Tried before the Hon. Wat. E. Clarke. No counsel appeared in this court for the defendant, so far as the record and the dockets show.

<p>From the City Court of Selma.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Jona. Haralson.</p> <p>cited Beg. v. Holloiuay, 2 Car. & K 942 ; 1 Bish. Crim. Law, 2d ed.', § 93; 2 lb. §§ 711, 755 ; Whart. Crim. Law, 9th ed., §§ 810, 833 ; 1 Hale’s P. C. 561; 2 East’s P. C. 509 ; Roscoe’s Crim. Ev. 327-8; Clark’s Manual, §§ 919, 964.</p> <p>cited Com. v. Mason, 105 Mass. 162; Beg. v. Bicharás, 1 Car. <fe K. 532 ; Beg.' v. O'Donnell, 7 Cox, C. C. 337; Beg. v. Poole, D. & B. 345.</p>

From the Circuirt Court of Lauderdale. Tried before the Hon. H. O. Speake.

<p> Indictment for Carrying Conceded Weapons. </p> <p>1. Constituents of offense; character of weapon. — A. conviction may be had for carrying a pistol concealed about the person (Code, § 4109), although the handle and the mainspring were broken, and the weapon could not be discharged in the ordinary way, though it might be discharged by striking the hammer with a knife, or other instrument.</p> <p>2. Withdrawal of charges ashed. — When chaiges asked are submitted to the court without being read aloud, they can not be withdrawn, on an intimation by the presiding judge that he should refuse them ; such action amounts^ to a refusal, and they should he marked as refused (Code, § 3109), in order that the jury may take them with the other charges, given and refused, on their retirement.</p>

From tbe Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard.

<p> Indictment for Trespass after Warning. </p> <p>1. Variance in name of prosecutor, or owner of land. — Where the premises trespassed on are described in tbe indictment as the property of “S. Sicily G., wife of John J. G.,” while the evidence shows that her true name was Sicily G., there is no material variance, although the two names may not be the same in law, since the identity of person is established by the additional descriptive averment.</p> <p>2. Who may give warning; leased premises. — The statute which creates the offense of trespass after warning (Code, § 4419) was intended to protect the possession; and when leased premises are in the possession of a tenant, warning by the landlord not to enter on them is not sufficient.</p>

Application by petition by Philip King, for a writ of habeas corpus to procure his discharge from the custody of the jailer of Montgomery, under a sentence to bard labor for the county, on account of undue delay in the execution of the sentence.

From tbe Circuit Court of Butler. Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard, Tbe indictment in this case charged, in a single count, that the defendant, Mitch. Held: nor does it show wbat was voted for at said election.” The court overruled .the demurrer, and tbe defendant pleaded not guilty.

From the Circuit Court of Randolph. Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley.

<p> Indictment for Burglary. </p> <p>1. General charge on evidence. — A general charge in favor of the defendant, in a criminal case, is properly refused, when there is any evidence, however weals or inconclusive, from which the jury may infer his guilt.</p> <p>2. Proof of burglary —Under an indictment for burglary, the prosecution having proved the fact that a burglary was committed, the defendant’s recent possession of goods stolen from the house at the same time, and his inconsistent statements as to the manner in which he acquired the possession, while the defendant, testifying in his own behalf, states that he purchased the goods fi om a person unknown to him; the jury might infer the defendant’s guilt on this evidence, and therefore a general charge in his favor is properly refused.</p>

<p> Indictment for Wanton Injury to Domestic Animal. </p> <p>1. Objections to grand jury. — -Under statutory provisions (Code, § 4889), the objection can not be raised on error, for tbe first time, that the record does not show that the foreman of the grand jury was sworn.</p> <p>2. Tender of compensation. — A tender of full compensation to the owner of the animal killed or injured, and its refusal by him, before the commencement of the prosecution, is a bar to it (Code, §§ 4409-11); and if a bona fide offer of full compensation is made, a refusal by the owner to accept it, declaring that he will not receive it, is an implied waiver of the production of the money.</p>

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Robinson & Ledyard, suing as partners, against Spencer C. Marks, to recover damages for the conversion of fourteen bales of cotton; and was commenced on the 5th June, 1885. The record does not show what pleas were filed, but a trial was had on issue joined, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, for $708.40.

Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. This action was brought by N Griel & Brother, suing as partners, against “J. F. Solomon,” as tbe defendant’s name was written in the summons and complaint; and was commenced on the 26th January, 1884.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 6th November, 1886, by Tbornton Tyler, against John F. Jewett; and sought, principally, the cancellation of a mortgage on a small lot in the city of Mobile, which the complainant and his wife had executed to said defendant, but which had no certificate of acknowledgment by the wife on examination separate and apart from her husband ; also, to cancel a lease of the lot, which the complainant had…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The original bill in this case was filed on the 9th July, 1884, by James McPhillips and others, depositors, and creditors of the Bank of Mobile, on behalf of themselves and other creditors, against the said bank as a corporation, and against Winston Jones as trustee, or assignee, in a deed of assignment executed to him by said bank, on the 8th July, 1884, for the benefit of its creditors; and sought to remove the assignee, to have a…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The original bill in this case was filed on the 18th November, 1885, by the appellants, a mercantile partnership doing business in the city of St. Louis, against the City Railroad Company of Mobile, a private corporation, Winston Jones, as assignee of the Bank of Mobile, and Bernard Moog ; and sought to compel said railroad company to recognize the rights of the complainants as owners of two certificates of stock, which had been issued…

Heard before the Hou. Thos. L. Frazer. In the matter of the final settlement of the accounts and vouchers of Joseph A. Holifield, as executor of the last will and testament of Mrs. Mary F. McLemore, deceased, to which he was cited by Mrs. Lucy A. Johnson, the residuary legatee under the will. The will of Mrs. McLemore was admitted to probate, iu said county of Lee, and letters testamentary granted to said Holifield as executor, on the 14th August, Í882.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 30th March, 1885, by W. D. McCurdy and T. L. Farris, as administrators of the insolvent estate of Bobert F. Simonton, deceased, ag'ainst Mrs. Boxana Simonton, the widow and sole devisee of said Bobert F., and against Mrs. Amanda W. Middleton (nee Simonton) and ber husband; and sought to enforce against Mrs. Middleton a vendor’s lien on a tract of land, for a balance of the purchase-money alleged to…

Tried before the Hon. Leroy E. Bos. This action was brought by Matthew J. Turnley, against A. B. Hanna, Wm. H. Holton, S. W. Brown, and Joseph Brown ; but the two defendants last named were not served with process, and did not appear.

Tried before the Hon. Henry D. Clayton. This action was brought by Anne E. Hart, against John M. Kendall and James T. Kendall, to recover… Held: then she is chargeable with notice of every fact that such inquiry would have discovered; and if inquiry, based on such suggestive fact, would have disclosed that Harrison Hart, by himself or agent, was holding for himself, then plaintiff is held to have had notice of the character of the holding, and the same became adverse from…

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. The appellee in this ease, the Woodstock Iron Company, a private corporation, against whom taxes were assessed by the tax-assessor of said county, as the owner of a blast-furnace at Anniston, valued at $65,000, for back taxes during several years, being notified of the assessment, appeared before the County Commissioners, and contested its liability for the taxes assessed, claiming exemption from taxation under the provisions of the act…

<p>Appeal from the Chancery Court of Mobile.</p> <p>Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster.</p> <p>cited Terrell v. JBr. Bank of Mobile, 12 Ala. 502; Lucas v. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. 289 ; Reid v. Bank of Mobile, 70 Ala. 199 ; Graft v. Russell, 67 Ala. 9; Barton v. Barton, 75 Ala. 400; Angelí on Corp., § 307; Railroad Go. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787; Beene v. Gahaba Railroad Go., 3 Ala. 660; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, C. C. 463 ; Upton v. Tribilccck, 91 TJ. S. 45; Cook on Stockholders, §§ 12-16, 69, 73; Glenn v. Semple, at the last term ; Bailey v. Olark, 21 Wall. 284.</p> <p>(1.) The Point Clear Improvement Company, to whose rights the defendant succeeded, was not a purchaser for value. There is no evidence that it parted with any consideration whatever for the property. Adams, the only witness examined on the subject, testifies that, if that company gave any consideration, he never knew it. The allegation that Goelet was president of the company at the time, and that he “simply took stock in the said company in the name of himself and said Adams for the said property,” is coupled with the allegation that the company paid nothing; and the two allegations are not inconsistent with each other. The company did not part with any evidence of indebtedness, nor give up anything of value, nor change its position for the worse in any particular. Spira v. Hornlhall, 77 Ala. 146. (2.) But, if the company paid value for the property, it is nevertheless chargeable with notice of the outstanding equity asserted by the bill. The company was formed by Goelet and Adams, for the express purpose of buying this property; and Goelet, in purchasing the property for the company, was only carrying out the objects of its creation, and acted directly within the line of his duty and authority as president; and his knowledge, under these circumstances, is notice to the company. Reid v. Banlc of Mobile, 70 Ala. 211. Moreover, the company knew from its own title that Goelet, its agent and president, was conveying property as the president of the insurance company, to Adams, who was a mere conduit for passing the title, and that it paid no consideration to Adams. If any consideration at all was paid by the improvement company, it was paid directly to Goelet, in satisfaction of his individual debt, for a conveyance of property belonging to the insurance company; and it was bound to know that Goelet, as president of the insurance company, had no power to do this, except under some special contract between himself and that company. It was, therefore, charged with • notice of the fact that the conveyances were made under some special contract between • said Goelet and the insurance company, and was put on inquiry as to the terms of that contract.— Whelan v. McCreary, 64 Ala. 325 ; Taylor v. A. & M. Asso., 68 Ala. 240; Rosette v. Wynn, 73 Ala. Í47.</p>

Heard before the Hon. John A. Poster. The bill in this case was filed on the 1st December, 1885, by Martin H. Sullivan, against Thomas E. Spotswood ; and sought to enjoin the defendant from interfering with a boom which the complainant had erected on and across Hog Bayou, a few miles above Mobile.

Tried before tbe Hon. John Moore. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to a stock of goods, between J..Pollock & Co., plaintiffs in attachment against McOaskey & Ratcliff, and D. S. Pritchett as claimant. The stock of goods had belonged to said Mc-Caskey & Eatcliff, and the plaintiffs’ attachment was levied on them on the Dth January, 1886.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This action was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 9th January, 1886, by J. Pollock & Co., merchants in Mobile, against “John W. McCaskey and Hamilton A. Rat-cliff, as merchants and partners in trade doing business under the name, firm and style of McCaskey & Ratcliff.” The attachment was levied on a stock of goods, and formal notice of the levy was given to said H. A. Ratcliff.

<p>Appeal from the Chancery Court of Hale.</p> <p>Heard before the Hon. Thos. Cobbs.</p> <p>The bill in this case was filed on the 29th March, 1886, by Carter Brothers & Co. and others, non-resident merchants doing business in Louisville, Nashville, and Baltimore, as creditors of James B. Coleman, against the said Coleman and A. Lawson, who were brothers-in-law, having married sisters ; and sought to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a sale of his stock of goods by said Coleman to Lawson, which was made on the night of March 20th, or the morning of March 21st, 1885, and to subject the proceeds of sale, in the hands of Lawson, to the payment of the debts due to complainants, and to any other creditors who might come in under the rules of practice and make themselves parties. According to the allegations of the bill, Coleman was engaged in business, in the town of Greensboro, “ as a retail dry-goods and grocery merchant,” and was indebted on the 20th March, 1885, to the several complainants in various sums, aggregating more than $2,000, for goods previously sold and delivered to him ; some of the debts being evidenced by promissory note, and others by open account only. Carter Brothers & Co. brought suit against him on their claim, in the Circuit Court of Hale county, on the 21st March, 1885, and obtained judgment on the 12th October following; and another one of the complainants brought suit on the 24th February, 1885, and obtained judgment on the 10th April, 1885 ; and executions on each of these judgments was regularly issued, and returned “ No property found.” The bill alleged that Coleman was insolvent at the time of the sale to Lawson, “ and that this was known to said Lawson;” that Lawson was a banker, and Coleman did all his banking business through Lawson’s house; that many claims against Coleman were held by attorneys for collection, at and before the sale ; that Lawson well knew his condition, and had notice that certain named attorneys held claims for collection against him ; that the stock of goods sold to Lawson was worth $3,600; that the sale was made by Coleman “with full knowledge of his condition, and with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors, said Lawson having at the time notice of said intent; and that Lawson, a few days afterwards, “sold out said goods, not by retail, but as an entire stock.” In addition to these allegations, the bill contained the following :</p> <p>“ On the 20th March, 1885, said Lawson was requested by a bank in Kentucky to become one of the sureties on a garnishment bond, at the suit of said Garter Brothers & Co. against Alex. Hafner, who was then negotiating with said Coleman for the purchase of the stock of goods then owned by said Coleman, but declined to make such bond, and informed said Coleman and Hafner of the fact that he had been so requested. On the said 20th March, 1885, said Coleman had been selling his stock of goods and merchandise by retail, and said Alex. Hafner had been offered the stock of goods at fifteen per cent, less than cost price, without any charge for carriage, and was engaged on that day in, taking an inventory of said stock, which fact was well known to said Lawson. After said Lawson ascertained that preparations were being made to attach the goods, or to garnishee said Hafner, be notified them of what he had heard, and urged them to finish the inventory as soon as possible, and told them that, if they would send for him, he would come down to the bank, and let Hafner have the money to pay for the goods. Afterwards, Hafner demanded that Coleman should let some one be selected as trustee for his (Coleman’s) creditors, to whom he (Hafner) might pay the purchase-money for the creditors. This was about half past twelve o’clock, on the night of March 20th. ' Coleman insisted that the money should be paid to him, and Hafner then told him 1 that rather tnan pay him money which creditors had notified him they expected to get, and seeing that he was not willing to have any arrangement made to pay his creditors, he would not buy the goods.’ Within one hour thereafter, Coleman had found Lawson, and at that hour of the night commenced a negotiation for the sale of his entire stock of goods to said Lawson ; and before eight o’clock next morning Lawson had purchased íhe goods, without verifying the inventory, and had paid said Coleman a large part of the agreed price in money; the balance he deducted, claiming that amount as due to him by Coleman.”</p> <p>An amendment of the bill was afterwards allowed, in which the complainants alleged that they “did not discover the nature and character of the said sale by said Coleman to said Lawson, until the 7th April, 1885, when said Lawson as garnishee, in a suit brought by said Carter Brothers & Co. as plaintiffs, against said James B. Coleman as defendant, in the Circuit Court of Hale, made answer, a copy of which, marked Exhibit C, is hereto attached, and prayed to be taken as' a part of this paragraph.” In this answer, which, as shown by the exhibit, was made orally in response to questions asked, the garnishee stated, that the contract of purchase was made on the morning of March 21st, 1885, between the hours of seven and eight o’clock ; that the value of the goods, as shown by the inventory, “was something over $3,000 that he did not verify the inventory, taking for granted .that it was correct; that he bought the goods at a discount of fifteen per cent.; that he was acquainted with the attempted sale by Coleman to Hafner, and knew that the negotiations between them had been broken off; that Coleman came to his house, at one o’clock at night, and so informed him, and then proposed to sell the goods to him ; that he had already promised to let Hafner have the money to pay for the goods, and it was understood that the parties were to come for him so soon as they got through with the inventory ; that he took the goods to secure money due and owing to him by Coleman, between $1,400 and $1,500, and paid him the balance in cash; that he did not then know Coleman’s insolvency, or embarrassed condition, though he had personal knowledge of several claims against him in the hands of attorneys ; and that Coleman had used some of the money paid him by respondent, in part payment of some of these claims.</p> <p>The chancellor sustained a demurrer to the bill, on the ground that the complainants had a plain and adequate remedy at law, and that it “ fails to charge that said Lawson participated in the fraudulent intent charged against Coleman;” and his decree is now assigned as error.</p> <p>cited Crawford v. Kirhsey, 55 Ala. 282; Lehman, Durr dé Co. v. Kelly, 68 Ala. 192; Hodges Brothers v. Coleman dé Carroll, 76 Ala. 103 ; Meyer dé Go. v. Sulzbacher, 76 Ala. 120 ; Abney v. King stand, 10 Ala. 355 ; Hurt v. Redd & Co., 64 Ala. 85 ; PuViam v. Dewberry, 41 Ala. 168; 7 Blackf. 400 ; 7 J. J. Mar. 523; 12 Wall. 342 ; 21 Penn. St. 495 ; Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, 200.</p> <p>(1.) A conveyance, when supported by a sufficient consideration, can" not be avoided by the creditors of the grantor, on account' of an alleged fraudulent intent on his part, unless the grantee also participated in such fraudulent intent.— Caldivell v. King, 76 Ala. 149; Leinhauff & Strauss v. Morris, 66 Ala. 407; Shealy v. Edwards, 75 Ala. 411; Lipscomb v. McGlella.n, 72 Ala. 151; 71 Ala. 173. The bill does not allege participation by Lawson in the alleged fraudulent intent of the debtor, Coleman; on the contrary, Lawson’s answer as garnishee, made an exhibit to the amendment, disproves any fraudulent intent. (2.) The bill is wanting in equity, because its allegations show that the complainants have an adequate remedy at law. — Dickinson, v. Lnois, Garthwaite & Go., 34 Ala. 639; Peebles v. Burns & Go., 77 Ala. 290 ; Smith v. Cockrell, 66 Ala. 64; 8 Ala. 743; 28 Ala. 160 ; Adams’ Equity, 305, note 2 ; 1 .Pom. Equity, § 178.</p>

Heard before' the Hon. John A. Foster. The People’s Bank, a corporation located at Eufaula, having become insolvent, and suspended payment, a bill in equity was filed on the 16th January, 1879, by W. H. Thornton and others, stockholders and creditors, asking the appointment of a receiver, and the settlement of its affairs as an insolvent bank. John G. Smith was appointed re-' ceiver, and all the assets of the bank were delivered to him.

Heard before the Hon. Henry A. Sharpe. ■The bill in this case was filed on the 13th June, 1887, by R>.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy E. Box. This action was brought by Charles Davis and others, children and heirs at law -of Edward Davis, deceased, against Addie Smith, H. C. Reynolds and others, to recover the possession of certain town lots in Montevallo, with damages for the detention ; and was commenced on the 8th April, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. Cobbs. The record in this case, as made up by consent, does not show when , the original bill was filed, containing only the amended (or substituted) bill, which was filed July 20th, 1886, the exhibit thereto, the demurrer, and the chancellor’s decree overruling it.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. The appellants in this case, Charles Stewart and others, appeared before the Court of County Commissioners of Hale county, and resisted an application by W. C. Christian andjO.thers for the establishment of an agricultural district in said county; and the application having been granted, they sued out a certiorari to remove the proceedings into the Circuit Court, and there moved to quash them.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The original bill'in this case was filed on the 12th November, 1881, by James McPbillips, as a creditor of the Danner Land & Lumber Company, an insolvent private corporation, on behalf of himself and all other creditors who might come in as parties and contribute to the expenses of the suit, against the said corporation, and against J. C. Strong, the trustee in a deed of assignment executed to him by said corporation, for the benefit of…

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was broughtlxy, J. L. Heddleston, against the appellant, as a common carrier, owning and operating a railroad which ran between Epes’ Station, in Sumter county, and Stewart’s Station in Hale county ; and was commenced on the 1st September, 1885.

<p> Bill in Equity to compel Seitlenvnt of Administration. </p> <p>1. Administrator occupying antagonistic relations; settlement of accounts of. — When the estate of the deceased husband is indebted to the estate of the deceased wife, and the same person is the administrator of each estate, the Probate Court has no jurisdiction, on final settlement of his accounts as administrator of the lormer, to render a decree against him in favor of himself as administrator of the latter estate; but, on final settlement of his accounts’as the administrator of the wife’s estate, the only child of the marriage being represented by a'guardian ad litem, and being declared the only distributee of the estate, the decree is not void on its face for the want of jurisdiction, nor can its validity be assailed by the child, on the ground that the husband’s estate was also a distributee and necessary party, and that the administrator was the personal representative of each estate.</p> <p>2. Presumption of payment, when administrator represents both debtor and creditor estates. — When the same person is the administrator of the respective’estaies of the deceased debtor and creditor, and a decree is rendered against him as administrator of the former, in favor of himself as-administrator of the, latter estate, which is void for want of jurisdiction, no presumption arises in his favor, or in favor of a surety on his bond as administrator of the debtor estate, that he has paid or transferred the assets in his hands from the debtor to the creditor estate.'</p> <p>3. ' Statute of limitations, in favor of surety on administration bond. The statute of limitations in favor of the sureties on the official bend of an administrator (Code, § 3226, subd. 7), as judicially construed, does not begin to run until there has been a judicial ascertainment of the ad-' ministrator’s liability; and a decree rendered on final settlement of his accounts, if void for want of jurisdiction in the court, has no such effect.</p>

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by Trabue, Davis & Co., partners engaged in business as merchants in the city of Louisville, Kentucky, against P. F. Garrett, as the administrator of the estate ef Mrs. Eliza A. F. Lane, deceased; and was commenced on the 26th October, 1883. The complaint contained only the common counts for goods sold and delivered, amounting to $528.51, and the only plea was the general issue.

Tried before the Hon. Wm. E. Clarke. Tbis action was brought by the Eagan Company, a private corporation organized under the laws of Tennessee, against W. Gr. and L. W. Johnson; was commenced on the 12th September, 1885, and was founded on the defendants’ promissory note for $275, which was dated at Chattanooga, Tennessee, November 1st, 1884, payable January 1st, 1885, to the order of the Kirk Machine Company, by whom it was transferred to the plaintiff, and contained a…

Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael. This action was brought by S. H. Parker and others, sur- • viving partners of the late firm of Garner, Parker & Co., against Alex. McIntosh, to recover a yoke of oxen, thirteen .head of cattle, twenty hogs, and one wagon; and was commenced on the 10th August, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. This action was brought by Charles Schultes, against H. W. Eberly, tax-collector of said county, to recover the sum of $3.84, which the plaintiff had paid, under protest and legal compulsion, as the tax assessed against his property by the trustees of the Cullman School District; and was commenced, before a justice of the peace, on the 20th January, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. Jon a. Haralson. ■Tbe bill in this case was filed by W. G. GordoD, as a judgment creditor of Samuel P. Mcllwain, against tbe said Samuel P. and his brother, John H. Mcllwain ; and sought to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a conveyance of lands executed by said Samuel P. to John H., and to subject the property to the satisfaction of the complainant’s judgment.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was brought by A. J. Peterson, against Mrs. M. L. Doss and Miss F. E. Doss, who were the widow and sister of S. P. Doss, deceased; and was commenced on the 10th January, 1884.

Tried before the Hou. James Aiken.- This action was brought by Bobert Faulkner, an infant, suing by his next friend, against W. G. Browder, as the administrator of the estate of David Browder, deceased; and was commenced on the 21st August, 1880.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Thornton & Wellborn, suing as partners, against James B. Adams, and was founded on an attachment bond, the condition of which was, “that the said Adams shall prosecute his said attachment to effect, and pay the said Thornton & Wellborn all such costs and damages as they may sustain by reason of the wrongful or vexatious suing out of said attachment.” The plaintiffs were engaged in business in Montgomery as…

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was brought by A. C. Prince, against J. S. Ryall, and was commenced in a justice’s court, on the 8th February, 1886. The cause of action was a claim for $45.20, “ as interest on a purchase of land, due on the 1st December, 1884;” and on appeal to the Circuit Court, the common counts were added to the complaint.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore. This action was brought by G. M. Reese against Jim Rugely, and was commenced by attachment sued out on the 7th December, 1885.

Heard before the Hon. S. E. A. Reaves. In the matter of the final settlement of the accounts and vouchers of E. A McMurray, as guardian of Mrs. M. M. Stewart, nee Phillips.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this ease was filed on the 29th July, 1884, by the partners composing the firm oí Josiah Morris & Co., against J. N. Barker and his wife, and Thornton Taliaferro as trustee for Mrs. Barker; and sought to cancel and remove, as a cloud on the complainants’ title to certain lands in Lee’ county, of which they were in possession, a conveyance to said Taliaferro as trustee for Mrs. Barker.

Tried before tbe Hob. J. M. Carmichael. This action was brought by D. H. McGee, against Jesse Fleming, to recover the possession of a tract of land containing 320 acres; and was commenced on tbe 13th February, 1886. Tbe cause was tried on issue joined on tbe plea of not guilty.

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The original bill in this case was filed on the 27th July, 1885, by the Alabama State Bank, a corporation organized under the general statutes, and doing business in Birmingham, against J. M. Glass, L. K. Schwartz, and Ed. Olmstead; and prayed an equitable attachment, an injunction, and the appointment of a receiver, to take charge of a stock of goods, which, as the bill alleged,' said Glass had bought in the name of Schwartz, in whose…

Tried before the Hon. Wm. E, Clarke. ' This action was brought by W. B. Glass, as the administrator of the estate of his deceased brother, Samuel T. Glass, deceased, against S. G. Woolf, as the administrator of the estate of H. A. Woolf, deceased, who was one of the sureties on the official bond of Williamson Glass as guardian of said Samuel T. and W. B. Glass; and was commenced on the 3d February, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 6th December, 1882, by W. T. Dixon & Co. and others, non-resident creditors of Hill & G-uilmartin, a mercantile partnership lately doing business in Troy, Alabama, against their said debtors, and against R. J. Higgins and H. M. Comer & Co.; and sought to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a sale and conveyance of their entire stock of goods by said debtors to their co-defendants.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The original bill in this cause was filed on the 16th March, 1877, by James Teal, as the administrator of the estate of B. B. Bass, deceased, against Alfred Holley and John Ramer ; and sought to enforce an. alleged vendor’s lien on a tract of land.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy E. Box. This action was brought by Boland B. Gray, against Bobert P. Thomason, to recover damages for an assault and battery-; and was commenced on the 22d March, 1886. The cause wap tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, “for $200, compensatory damages,” on which judgment was rendered in his favor.

Tried before the Hon. Jas. W. Lapsley. This action was brought by A. J. Thompson, against Warren Fears, and was commenced by attachment, which was sued out on the 11th November, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. B. K. McSpadden. The appeal in this case is taken from a decretal order overruling a motion, to dissolve an injunction, both for want of equity in the bill, and on the denials of the answer; and said decree is here assigned as error.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by D. J. Anderson, against George M. J ones and A. A. Autrey, to recover four yokes of oxen, a log-cart, chains and fixtures. The defendants executed the necessary bond, and retained the posession of the property. The cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of non detinet, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, for the specific property sued for, or $386.25, its assessed value.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. The appellee in this case, Wm. A. Mitchell, sued out an attachment on the 14th November, 1884, against Geo. W. Thrift, claiming a debt of $85 for advances made, during the year 1884, to enable the said Thrift to make a crop.

John Mooeií, presiding judge of the fourth judicial circuit, which embraces Hale county, refusing to grant a certiorari to a justice of the peace in said county, for the purpose of bringing up for revision the proceedings had before said justice in a certain cause lately pending before him, in which one H. C. Christian was plaintiff, and the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company was defendant; in which case the plaintiff claimed damages for the loss of a mule, alleged to…

Tried before the Hon. Henry C. Speake. This action was brought by Henry Warten, against W. T. Strane, to recover “one lot of corn in the shuck, to-wit, 76 barrels, in defendant’s crib nearest his dwelling, lately bought by plaintiff from defendant, of the value, to-wit, of $228, and one cotton-gin, formerly owned by A. C. Legg, and now in the gin-house on defendant’s premises, of the value, to-wit, óf $100, with the value of the hire or use thereof during.the detention;” and…

Heard before the Hon. Thos. Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 16th August, 1884, by the Aultman & Taylor Company, a foreign corporation, against Andrew J. Shelton and his wife; and sought to foreclose a mortgage on a tract of land containing about 200 acres, and also on certain machinery, which the complainant had sold to said Shelton, the mortgage being given to secure the notes for the purchase-money.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the láth June. 1886, by John B. Lillie, against Willis A. Barclift, B. M. Carter, and J. B. Bamsey; and sought to enforce a vendor’s lien on a tract of land, which the complainant had sold to said Carter, who afterwards sold to one Price, who sold to Barclift, who sold and conveyed to Bamsey.

Tried before the Hon. Henry A. Sharpe. This action was brought by Oliver Marble & Son, suing as partners, against Thos. D. Lypes and H. T. Beggs, as late partners doing business under the firm name of Thos. D. Lypes & Co.; and was commenced on the 20th March, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed in January, 1884, by Mrs. Louisa Hembree, against W. C. Glover and Vincent D. Ladd, her late partners, asking a settlement of the partnership accounts, an injunction against a sale of lands under a power in a mortgage, and the application of any balance found due her on settlement of the partnership accounts to the payment of the mortgage debt.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to two mules, a buggy and harness, between Anderson, Green & Co., plaintiffs in execution against William Conant, and Daniel Sandlin as claimant; and on the death of said claimant, the suit was revived in favor of his administrators, who are the appellants.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed 'oh the 11th January, 1885, by Worthington & Smith, partners doing business as merchants in Nashville,' Tennessee, against Landon Carter and his wife, Mrs. Henrietta Carter; -and sought to subject to the payment and satisfaction of a judgment, which the complainants had recovered agajnst said Landon Carter, several small lots or parcels of-land, which had been conveyed to Mrs. Carter, on the ground that…

Tried before the Hon. Lerox F. Box. The appellee in this case, John B. Ingram, obtained a judgment before a justice of the peace against S. A. Smith, on which an execution was issued, and placed in the hands of F. M. Gardner, the appellant, as constable, to be executed. The execution was levied by the constable, and a forthcoming bond taken for the property.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. This action was brought by James Bees, against the appellant railroad company, to recover $150, as alleged in the original complaint, “ as damages for negligently killing a valuable horse, the property of plaintiff, on the ■ — ■ day of February, 1885 and was commenced on the 9th June, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. Henry O. Speake. This action was brought by James Bailey, against Bichard Campbell, to recover the possession of a tract of land containing about 320 acres; and was commenced on the 24th June, 1882. The plaintiff died before the trial, and the action was revived in favor of E. A. Bailey as his administrator.

Heard before the Hon. S. 3L McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 18th March, 1887, by Mrs. Elizabeth K. Johnson, against L. P. Walker, both individually and as executor of the last will and testament of his deceased mother, Mrs. Eliza D. Walker, and against several other persons, legatees under the will.

Tried before the Hon. E. M. Russell. In the matter of the probate of the alleged last will and testament of Dr. Jacob Y. Cantwell, deceased, who died in said county of Morgan, on or about the 11th February, 1883.

Heard before the Hod. James M. Jordan. In the matter of the petition of William F. Vaughan and Others, heirs at law and distributees of the estate of William Vaughan, deceased, to set aside a decree rendered on the final settlement of the accounts and vouchers of W. C. Suggs and Elbert Vaughan, as administrators of said estate.

Application by S. Gresham, by petition, for a writ of mandamus from this court to the Chancery Court at Montgomery, Hon. Jno. A. Foster presiding, requiring him to set aside and vacate an order or decree rendered in a cause pending in said court, wherein Mrs. A. A. Ware was the complainant, and said Gresham and others were defendants ; which decretal order granted a rehearing of a decree rendered in said cause by consent, in vacation.

Heard before the Hon. S. E. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 7th January, 1885, by J. J. Welsh, against Andrew J. Coley, E. M. Barnes, and others (as tenants and claimants in possession), asking a redemption and the cancellation of a mortgage, which the complainant and his wife had executed to said Coley, and alleging usury and full payment. On final hearing, on pleadings and proof, the chancellor dismissed the billand his decree is now assigned as error.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Poster. The bill in this case was filed on the 3d July, 1885, by W. W. Wilkinson, against S. B. Parmer and others; and sought to enforce an alleged vendor’s lien for the unpaid purchase-money of land, as evidenced by a promissory note, which was made an exhibit to the bill.

<p> Trover for Conversion of Cross-Ties by Railroad Company. </p> <p>1. Proof of custom; when admissible. — In an action against a railroad company, for the conversion of cross-ties, which were cut by plaintiff, and placed along the line of defendant’s track, evidence of a custom or usage in regard to the delivery, inspection and acceptance (or rejection) of cross-ties placed along the line of the railroad by persons desiring to sell, which custom was known to plaintiff, is admissible for the defendant, as tending to show that the cross-ties were taken under a contract, express or implied.</p> <p>2. Contract of sale; when title passes. — An offer to sell specific chattels, and an acceptance of that offer, are essential to an .executed contract of sale; but such offer and acceptance may be shown by the acts and conduct of the parties, although not expressed in words: as where cross-ties are deposited, according to a custom known to the parties, along the line of a railroad, for inspection and acceptance by the company, this amounts to a proposal to sell, and the subsequent appropriation of them by the company is an acceptance of the offer, and passes the title.</p> <p>3. When trover lies. — Trover lies for the conversion of cross-ties, placed by the plaintiff near or along a railroad track, and wrongfully taken by the railroad company without authority; but, if they were taken under a contract, express or implied, by which the title passed, the only remedy is an action for the price.</p>

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobjbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 10th April, 1887, by Abram J. Moses, against John W. McClain; and sought the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a tract of land by defendant to complainant.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 23d November, 1885, by W. B. Chardavoyne, as the next friend and guardian of James H. Ballentine and others, “minor heirs of Mary E. Ballentine, deceased,” against Darius Lynch, as the administrator de bonis non of. the estate of Edgar M. Swoope, deceased, S. D. Cabaniss, E. P. Ward, and John Phelan; and sought, principally, to enjoin further proceedings by -said Lynch under orders for the sale of the…

Heard before the Hon. S. E. McSpadden. . The bill in this case was filed on the 5tb May; 1886, by Andrew J. Sykes and wife, against Edward C. Betts and wife; and sought to enforce an alleged vendor’s lien on a certain tract of land, on account of the non-payment of $500, part of the agreed price, under the terms of a written contract between the parties for the division and distribution of the estate of John M. Swoope, deceased, who was the father of Mrs. Sykes and Mrs.…

<p> Bill in Equity for Reformation and Forclosure of Mortgage. </p> <p>1. Revision of chancellor’s finding on facts. — The settled ruléis, that this court, in reviewing the chancellor’s finding on a question of fact, will not disturb it unless it (dearly appears to be erroneous.</p>

Appeal .from the City Court of Montgomery. Heard before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The appellant in this case, a private corporation organized under the general statutes, presented to M. C. Burke, the auditor of public accounts, an account against the State amounting to $1252.50, for printing and publishing in thé Montgomery.

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

Tried before the Hon.'Henry C. Speake. . This action was brought by Samuel Pleasants and Robert S. Pleasants, against Mrs. Susan C. Erskine; and was commenced on the 12th April, 1873. Robert Pleasants having disclaimed any interest in the suit, his name was struck out by amendment; and Samuel Pleasants having died, the action was revived in favor of his wife as administratrix.

. Heard before the Hon. W. F. Mahone, Register in Chancery, sitting pro hae vice as Probate Judge. In the matter of the estate of Josiah Bozeman, senior, deceased, on the application of T. H. Bozeman, as administrator, for an order to sell the lands, on the ground that they could not be equitably divided among the heirs without a sale. Said Josiah Bozeman died, intestate, in October, 1841.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by “ B.Wellman,” as the plaintiff was decribed in the summons and complaint, against Beggs & Son as partners ; and was founded on the defendants’ promissory note, payable to plaintiff. The defendants filed a plea in abatement, because the plaintiff’s Christian name was nowhere set out.

Heard before the Hon. S: K. MoSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th September, 1886, by Martha Cameron, against the widow and children of her deceased brother, Daniel Cameron, who died, intestate, in said county of Jackson, some time during the year 1884; and sought to enforce payment of a note, which the said Daniel Cameron had executed to the complainant, out of the property belonging to his estate in the possession of the defendants.

•Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall. Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. This action was brought by George Bush, against James L. Jackson and Thomas Price, and was commenced before adjust-ice of the peace, on the 16th October, 1882.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. This case was before the court on appeal during the December term, 1884, and is reported iij 76 Ala. 143. The bill was filed on the 13th August, 1878, by Mrs. Martha H. Owen and Edward P. Shackelford, the latter suing as the administrator of the estate of M. W. Mayes, deceased, against Win.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speaks. This action was brought by Hill, Hardy & Co., suing as partners, against Wilson L. Ayers, who was the sheriff of the county, to recover damages for the defendant’s alleged wrongful act in seizng and selling, under execution against one W. F. Scott, a part of the crop raised by him during the year 1884, on which the plaintiffs claimed a statutory lien for advances, whereby their statutory lien was lost and destroyed.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 18th July, 1883, by L. B. Thornton, as the administrator of the estate of Mrs. Elizabeth W. Johnson, deceased, against Whitmell R. Newsom, both individually and as executor of the last will and testament of Whitmeíl Rutland, deceased, and several other persons ; and sought a money decree against said Newsom, both individually and as executor, for the amount due on a legacy of $2,000, bequeathed by…

Tried before the Hon. Wi. E. Clarke. This action was brought by W. C. Dozier, against Greene Robinson, and was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 27th October, 1886.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. The appellants in this case, C. J. Cooper & Co., having-obtained a judgment before a justice of the peace against Hayes & Roberts, caused an execution thereon issued to be levied on a barrel of whiskey, as the property of said Hayes & Roberts. A claim to the barrel of whiskey was thereupon interposed by Jacobs & Belsinger, and bond given to try the right of property.

Tried before the Hon. Wi. E. Clarke. This action was brought by John T. Hardie, agaiust S. L. Strickland, and was founded on the defendant’s promissory note for $425, which was dated December 8th, 1883, payable on the 7th December, 1884, to the order of W. T. Smith, “at the office of E. B. Goelet, Mobile, Alabama,” and assigned by said Smith to plaintiff on the 20th November,, 1885.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the. 18th January, 1886, by Samuel J. Bolling, against John T. Shine ; and prayed an account of waste committed by the. defendant on lands leased to him by the complainant, and a,n injunction against further waste. After answer filed, the cause was submitted during the August.term, 1886, on pleadings and proof ; and the chancellor • rendered a decretal order of reference to a special register.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was brought by the appellant, a domestic corporation, suing as assignee, against H. L. Oliver and C. D. Oliver; was founded on the defendants’ promissory note for $125, which was dated December 1st, 1879, and payable twelve months after date, to the order of T. N. Fowler; and was commenced on the 9th July, 1883.

Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael. Tbe entire transcript in this case is made out in the form of a bill of exceptions, commencing this : “ The State of Alabama, Barbour county; Circuit Court, Spring Term, 1887.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Leroy F.- Box.</p> <p>cited Henderson v. Sublett, 21 Ala. 626 ; Lankford v. Jackson, 21 Ala. 650.</p> <p>cited Fabelv. Boykin, 55 Ala. 383.</p>

■ Tried, before the Hou. James'Aiken. This action was brought by Thomas J. King and others, children and heirs of Andrew King, deceased, against James L. Jackson, and:was commenced on the 13th'January, 1886.

Tried before the Hon. Henry A. Sharpe. This action was brought by Morgan S. Gilmer, against George O. DePoister, to recover damages for an alleged 'trespass on a tract of land, which was described in the complaint as “the west half of the south-east quarter, and the south-east quarter of the south-west quarter, section thirty-two (32), township seventeen (17) south', range two (2) west;” and,was commenced on the 16th March, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. Cobbs. Tbe original bill in this case was filed on the 14th May, 1887, by J. H. Nathan, as a stockholder in the Sheffield and Tuscumbia Street Railway Company, a private corporation organized under the general statutes (Code, §§ 1917-28); against the said corporation, and against the Sheffield Street Railway Company, another corporation similarly organized, Henry B. Tompkins, and nine other persons, stockholders, directors and officers, or…

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 24th May, 1880, by Bales Helms, against A. E. Fields and Lemuel Bentley; and sought equitable relief against two mortgages, one of which was executed by the complainant to said Fields, and the other to said Bentley.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. This action was brought by Thomas Glasscock against the appellant, a private corporation, to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract of employment; and was commenced on the 4th January, 1884. The complaint contained two special counts on the contract, and the common count for work and labor was added.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The original bill in this case was filed on the 21st May, 1885, by P. A. Tutwiler, against Mrs. Carrie Lane and her husband; and sought to enjoin the collection of a decree rendered by the Probate Court against the complainant, on final settlement of his accounts as late guardian of Mrs. Lane, and to have the accounts re-stated in equity.

.. Calhoun. Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Bos. This action was brought by T. L. Bobertson against J. O. McPherson, and was commenced .on .the 5th June, 1886.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The original bill in this ease was filed on the 5th November, 1883, by the appellees, suing as late partners, and as purchasers at their own sale of a tract of land mortgaged to them by William Conant, against the said Conant and James McHan; and prayed a confirmation of said sale, or a re-sale at the option of said Conant, and an account of rents and profits against McHan, who was in possession of the land.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 3d January, 1885, by Hobbie & Teague, partners doing business as merchants in the city of Montgomery, as creditors of the late firm of Hunt & Owens, against John A. Hunt, John A. Owens, Mrs. E. Y. Owens, and Mrs. S. E. Hunt; and sought to set aside, on allegations of fraud, a'transfer, and sale of the entire stock of goods belonging to Hunt & Owens, to said John A. Owens.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 6th May, 1886, by Samuel ¡VI. Held: he could, by a temporary injunction, deprive the defendant of all profits he might earn during the remainder of tbe lease ; and denied that he was insolvent, or that he was selling tbe ores alieady mined and stored until the controversy between him and tbe complainant was determined.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. This action was brought by John Swann and John A. Billups, trustees in a deed of trust executed in the name of the State of Alabama, on the 8th February, 1877, under the provisions of the act approved February 28d, 1876, known as the “ Debt Settlement Act,” against George W. Jenkins, to recover the possession of a tract of land, which was described as the north-east quarter of the south-west quarter of section fifteen (15), township three…

Heard before tbe Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 17th July, 1886, by Mrs. Charlotte B. Hicks, a married woman, suing by her next friend, against her husband, James A. Hicks, and George P. Heard; and sought to have cancelled and set aside, as clouds on her title to certain lands, of which she was in possession, a mortgage of said lands to said George P. Heard,^signed by her and her husband, and several subsequent conveyances thereof.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 18th May, 1883, by J. Marion Ward, against Mrs. Elizabeth S. Johnson and N. D. Johnson, her husband, trustee and agent; and sought to foreclose a mortgage on a steam-engine, which the defendants had bought from the Lima Machine Works, giving their notes for the unpaid purchase-money.

Heard before the Hon. Tilos. M. Arrington. The bill in this case was filed on the 7th .January, 1887, by Mrs. Mary L. Thorington, Win. S. Thorington, Jack Thorington, and Henry Moses as general guardian of the three 'infant children ol Robert I). Thorington, deceased, against the said infants; and prayed a sale of certain lands, under the decree of the court, for the purpose of making an equitable division among the several parties in interest.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 11th February, 1885, by Mrs. Ellender C. Anglin, the wife oi Thomas W. Anglin, against her said husband and the Pacific Guano Company, a foreign corporation; and prayed an injunction against the sale of a tract of land under the power contained in a mortgage, and a cancellation of the mortgage as to the land.

Appeal fro.m .the Chancery Court of Mobile. ‘ Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster.1 . ■The original bill ip this case was filed on the ■ 7th May, 1884, by Mrs. Adolpha M. Austin, a married woman, against-Mrs, Amanda M. Pijmey, who was her mother, and George F. ’Whrborn, who was the executor of the last will and testament of Adolph M. Solomon, her deceased father; and' sought to compel an account and settlement by said Wer.born, both- as executor and as trustee, of his…

Heard before tbe Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed by Mrs. Sarah A. Phillips, individually and as executrix of the last will and testament of her deceased husband, James D. Phillips, against John Benson, Samuel G. Adams, and L. E. Parsons, jr.; and sought to set aside a sale of a tract of land by the register, and a conveyance executed by him to said Benson as the purchaser.

Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th August, 1882, by J. Pollock & Co., merchants and partners in trade doing business in the city of Mobile, as creditors of Walter M. Gilkey, against him and his wife, Wm.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The original bill in this case was filed on the 8th November, 1884, by Wiley A. Bell, against John B. Watkins, Mrs. Gertrude S. Watkins, his wife, their several children, and Thomas H. Watkins as their trustee ; and sought to subject to the satisfaction of a judgment, which the complainant had recovered against said John B. Watkins and his wife, certain lands held in trust by said Thomas H. Watkins, for Mrs. Gertrude S. Watkins and her…

Application by petition by John A. Lusk, the solicitor of the ninth judicial circuit, for a mandamus from this court to the Circuit Court of DeKalb, Hon. John B. Tally presiding, “commanding said court to recognize said petitioner as the solicitor for the ninth judicial circuit, and to allow him to appear in said court as the solicitor for the said circuit, and therein to perform and discharge all the duties required by law of circuit solicitors.” A bill of exceptions was…

Heard before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard. Application by petition, by Collier, Pinckard & Gruber, attorneys at law and partners, engaged also in negotiating loans on mortgages of real estate in Montgomery, for a mandamus to Hon. F. C. Randolph, judge of probate of said county, requiring bim to allow petitioners to bave access to tbe records of bis office, in order that they might make a complete abstract of tbe titles to all tbe lands in tbe county, for future use in their…

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th July, 1884, by D. B. Miller, against John Swann and John A. Billups, trustees in a conveyance executed to them in the name of the State of Alabama, and against several other persons as tenants in possession under them ; and sought to divest the legal title to a tract of land out of said trustees, and to enjoin on action at law which they had instituted against Ellis Phelan, to whom the…

<p> Bill in Equity to enforce Vendor's Lien on Land. </p> <p>1. ■Sale of lands under decree; setting aside. — A sale of lands by the register is regarded as in fieri until it is confirmed, and is subject to be set aside for good cause shown, on rhe petition of any party in interest, although the purchaser has complied,with the terms of sale, and has received a conveyance.</p> <p>2. Same; misconduct on part of purchaser. — Under a bill to enforce a vendor’s lien on a tract of land, part of which had been aliened by the purchaser while living, part devised by his last will, and part ordered to be sold for'the payment of his debts; said'last part having been sold by his executor, and bought by a person who afterwards obtained control of the decree declaring and enforcing the vendor’s lien on the entire tract, under an agreement with the several parties to the suit, by which hé promised to institute proper proceedings in the cause to have the court determine the order in which the several parcels should be sold under the decree, but, in violation of said agreement, directed the register to sell all the lands except the part which he had bought from the executor, and became himself the purchaser at the register’s saleheld, that the sale should be set aside at the instance of the other parties in interest.</p>

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 24th July, 1884, by Mrs. N. M. Stringfellow, the wife of Terrell Stringfellow, who was also joined with her as complainant, “ as husband or next friend, one or both, as may be necessary,” against Mrs. A. Kate Ivie and her husband, Thomas J. Ivie; and sought to set aside a sale of certain lands by the register of the court, and the cancellation of a conveyance which he had executed to Mrs. Ivie as the…

Heard before the Hon. S. X. McSpadden. The bill in this case was file-d on the 9th July, 1886, by Sylvian Marks, against Mrs. Thomasina R. Parker and her husband, James Parker; and sought to subject Mrs. Parker’s interest in a certain house and lot in the city of Montgomery, alleged to be held by her as an equitable separate estate, to the payment of three promissory notes executed by her, of which the complainant claimed to be the owner and holder by indorsement.

Heard before the Hon. F. C. Randolph. •In the matter of the estate of Patrick Carolan, deceased, on the application of James R. Warren, as administrator, for an order to sell the lands for the payment of debts. The decedent died on or about the 27th January, 1880, and letters .of administration on his estate were granted by said Probate Court, on the 7th January, 1885, to said J. R. Warren, who was a creditor.

Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Thomas M. Barnett, against J. R. Warren & Co., a mercantile firm doing business in the city of Montgomery; and was commenced on the 2d' November, 1886. The complaint contained only the common counts, and the only plea was the general issue.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. On the 23d March, 1887, the appellant in this case made application by petition to Hon. John A. Steele, the judge of probate of said county, fpr a license to retail spirituous liquors in the town of Leighton; tendering the money prescribed as the price, and producing the recommendation of the requisite number of householders and freeholders.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Coffee.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Limestone.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. Henry C. Speake.</p>

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. This action was brought by A. B. Farquhar, against J. H. Spigener and Julia A. McDonald, as administrators of the estate of Thos. S. McDonald, deceased ; and sought to recover the balance due and unpaid on a promissory note signed by McDonald & Simms, of which firm said Thos. S. McDonald was alleged to have been a partner at the time of his death.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 5th March, 1886, by William Urquhart and others, heirs at law of Henry S. Urquhart, deceased, against Minnie Guilmartin and her husband, John F.; and prayed the reformation of a conveyance of a tract of land, which the defendants had executed to said Henry S. Urquhart in his life-time, by correcting the description of the property, and an injunction of an action at law, which Mrs. Guilmartin had…

Heard before the Hon. A. B. Hays. In tlie matter of the application of S. L. Fuller for the grant to him of letters of administration, with tie will annexed, on the estate of John M. Wheat, deceased, on the ground that he was the largest cx-editor of the estate.

Heard before the Hon. S. H. MoSpadden. • The bill in this case was filed on the 2d June, 1882, by J. D. Stoudenmire, against Warren L. DeBardelaben, and sought an account of waste, alleged to have… Held: owned and controlled by her, during coverture, as an equitable separate estate, under an ante-nuptial agreement between herand her intended husband, which was carried out in good faith.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th July, 1878, by Lawrence P. Cleere, a son of George D. Cleere, senior, deceased, against George I).

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 25th January, 1886, by Mrs. Sallie G. Thoringtou, against the corporate authorities of the city of Montgomery, and sought to enjoin and restrain the sale of three city lots under a decree in chancery deqlaring and enforcing a lien in favor of the city for unpaid taxes assessed against them and other lots as the property of Mrs. Mary E. Winter; and the general prayer, for other and further relief,…

Appeal fr.om tlie Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbabd. This action was brought by John H. Gindrat and others, children and heirs at law of Abram Gmdrat, deceased, against the Montgomery Gas-Light Company, a domestic corporation, to recover an undivided one-half interest in certain lots in the city of Montgomery, on which the defendant’s gas-works were erected; and was commenced on the 21st August, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. S. H. Sprott. This action was brought by the Alabama State Bank, a corporation doing business at Birmingham, against B. ,B. Barnes and others, who were engaged in business as partners under the name of the Bank of Eutaw, to recover one hundred bales of cotton; and was commenced on the 13th August, 1884.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The original bill in this case was filed on the 16th July, 1883, by Ella Mewburn and others, children and heirs at law of James E. Mewburn, deceased, against W. J. Bass as the administrator of the estate of Bichard Hudson, deceased, John A. McIntosh, and several other persons ; and sought an account and redemption under a mortgage of a tract of land, which said James E. Mewburn in his life-time had executed to said Hudson.