Volume 85 — Alabama Reports

Erom tire City Court of Montgomery. Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. Tbe defendant in tbis ease, Irvine Eariss, a freedman, was indicted for tbe murder of Robert Cater (or Cato), another freedman, by shooting him with a pistol; was convicted of manslaughter in tbe first degree, and sentenced to tbe penitentiary for tbe term of ten years.

From tbe City Court of Montgomery. Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. Tbe defendant in tbis ease, A. 0. Walker, was indicted ■ for an assault on Daisy Harris, a mulatto woman, witb intent to murder ber; was tried on issue joined on tbe plea of not guilty, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in tbe penitentiary for tbe term of five years.

Erom the Circuit Court of Cherokee. Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. The defendant in this case was indicted for an assault on Thomas J. Woodward, with intent to murder him; one count charging that the assault was made with an iron weight, and another that it was made with a pistol.

Ebom the Circuit Court of Oouecuh. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbabd.

From the Circuit Court of Wilcox. Tried before the Hon. John Moose. The defendant in this case was indicted for the larceny of a hog, the property of W. B. Sheffield.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by the appellant, a domestic corporation, against John A. Reynolds and R. M. Lee, as partners composing the firm of Reynolds & Lee; and was founded on three promissory notes signed in said partnership name, at Clayton, Alabama, on the 1st May, 1884, and payable to the order of the plaintiff, at the First National Bank of Montgomery, on the 15th October, November and December, respectively, 1884.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by John H. Smith, T. C. Green, D. B. Lucas, and the children and heirs at law of John W. Dalgam, deceased, against Samuel D. Seelye, to recover the possession of a small tract of land near the city of Montgomery, with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 20th May, 1886. “On the trial,” as the bill of exceptions states, “the plaintiffs showed sufficient title in themselves to recover, unless their…

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This case is reported in 83 Ala. 418, and the material facts are there stated. The opinion there published was withdrawn by tbe court, ex mero motu, and tbe opinions bere published were filed on a subsequent day of tbe term.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 18th June, 1886, by Mrs. Bosa Herstein, as executrix of the will of her deceased husband, Bobert Herstein, against L. P. Walker individually, and as executor of the will of his deceased mother, Mrs. Eliza D. Walker; and sought to subject certain real estate in Huntsville to the satisfaction of a debt which the complainant had paid as the personal representative of her husband, who was bound as…

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 6th October, 1885, by George W. Hill, sole surviving child and distributee of the estate of Bird Hill, deceased, against William C. Glover and others, as sureties on the bond of William J. Bennett, deceased, as administrator of the estate of said Bird Hill; and sought an account and settlement of said administration.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by Smitha & Chastain, suing as partners, against the appellant, a Georgia railroad corporation, to recover damages for injuries to a car-load of horses, transported over defendant’s road, from Atlanta, by way of Macon, to Eufaula; and was commenced on the 13th April, 1887.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 21st April, 1886, by B. T. Simpson, against James M. Angel; and sought the specific execution of an agreement for the exchange of two tracts of lands. The written agreement, which was made an exhibit to the bill, was dated November 27th, 1885, signed by both parties, and in these words: “Agreement between J. M. Angel and B. T. Simpson.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 31st December, 1886, by Hiram W. Davis and Mrs. Margaret K. Hayes, as joint complainants, against Lucien D. Campbell, Henry 0. Montgomery, and others; and sought to cancel and set aside, as a cloud on complainants’ title to a tract of land, which they had bought at sheriff’s sale under execution against said H. C. Montgomery, a conveyance which he had previously executed to said Campbell.

Ai’eeal from the City Court of Birmingham, in equity. Heard before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The bill in this case was filed on the 80th of May, 1887, by the appellants, merchants and partners in trade doing business in Tuskaloosa, against Chambers McAdory; and sought to compel the specific performance of an agreement for the lease of a building, which said McAdory was erecting in Birmingham.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. A. Street. Iu the matter of the final settlement of the accounts and vouchers of James H. Moore, deceased, as administrator of the estate of Simon Jacobs, deceased, by Andrew J. McDonald, the personal representative of said Moore, on citation issued at the instance of Henry Gr. Jacobs, as administrator de bonis non of said Simon’s estate.

Heard before tbe Hon. Thomas Cobbs. Tbe bill in- this case was filed on tbe 5tb February, 1887, by Mrs. Sallie S. Penny and ber husband, against Mrs. Fannie P. Jackson and her husband, and Annie D. Schoenberger, an infant residing witb Mrs. Jackson; and sought to enforce a constructive trust, in favor of Mrs. Penny and said infant, in certain homestead lands, wbicb bad been sold under a decree in chancery in favor of Mrs. Jackson, tben tbe widow of George Scboenberger,…

Tried before tbe Hon. James W. Lapsley. Tbis was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to a stock of goods, wares and merchandise, between Eoswald & Stoll, plaintiffs in attachment against D. W. Eawlinson, and Hobbie & Teague as claimants. The plaintiffs’ attachment was sued out on the 20th December, 1886, and was levied, on the stock of goods on the same day, in the storehouse then occupied by said Rawlinson.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. Tbe bill in tbis case was filed on tbe 24th May, 1887, by Henry O. Seixas, against Emmet O’Neal and tbe heirs at law of Neander H. Rice and Ms wife, both deceased; and sought to reform, by correcting and perfecting tbe description of tbe lands conveyed, a mortgage, or a written instrument in the nature o£ a mortgage, executed by said N. H. Bice while in life, and to foreclose the same by a sale of the property.

Appeal front tbe Chancery Court of Autauga. Heard before tbe Hon. S. K. MoSpaddeN. Tbe bill in tbis case wa filed on tbe 2d June, 1882, by J. D. Stoudenmire, against Warren L. DeBardelaben; and sought an account of waste, alleged to have been committed by tbe defendant on lands belonging to bis wife, Mrs. Caroline W. DeBardelaben, since deceased, who was tbe mother of tbe complainant by a former busband.

Heard before the Hon. JOHN A. Postee. The bill in this case was filed on the 8th October, 1886, by Wood Brothers, merchants and partners in trade, as creditors of Ezekiel Warrick, against said Warrick, G. C. Collier and Thomas H. J ones, the two latter being partners in trade doing business under the firm name of Collier & Jones; and sought to have a mortgage, which Warwick had executed to Collier & Jones, declared a general assignment, and enforced and foreclosed as such…

This was an application by Waldo P. Wilson, by petition and motion, for a mandamus to tbe Hón. JOHN A. Fostbe, presiding in the Chancery Court at Mongomery, commanding him to strike out an order made at the April term, 1888, in a certain cause pending in said court, wherein said Wilson was complainant, and Jas.

. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. JohNP. Hubbabd. This action was brought by P. J. Anderson against Geo. W. Cook & Co., and was founded on the defendants’ three promissory notes, for $83.33 each, dated August 11th, 1886, and payable respectively on 1st March, April, and May, 1887, to Moses Brothers as agents for plaintiff.

Heard before the Hon. S. K. MoSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 8th December, 1887, by O. W. Cooper and others, land-owners in the town of Anniston, against the Anniston & Atlantic Bailroad Company, a domestic corporation organized under the general statutes; and sought to enjoin the further prosecution by the defendant of proceedings for the condemnation of a right of way for its road through the complainants’ lands.

Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. Held: in its rulings on the pleadings, and in its charge to the jury, that the garnishees were not liable, and they were discharged. The judgment in the garnishment case was in these words: “Came the garnishees, and answered the writ of garnishment; and the said H. W. Clark filed his affidavit that, in his belief, said answer was untrue.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 14th March, 1888, by A. Senior & Son, merchants and partners carrying on business in Cincinnati, Ohio, against Mrs. Semira Mohr, the widow of Alex.

<p> Action on Promissory Notes, with Common Counts. </p> <p>1. General charge on evidence —When the plaintiff’s claim or demand is clearly established by the evidence, the only defense being set-off or recoupment, the court may, on request, charge the jury in reference to it without hypothesis.</p> <p>2. Set-off or recoupment of damages, under contract for plated matter of newspaper. — In an action on a contract, under which plaintiff furnished printed outside matter for defendant’s newspaper, of which printed matter not more than three colums was to consist of advertisements; defendant can not set off or recoup any damages sustained by him by reason of the fact that more than three columns were filled with advertisements, without showing that the value, circulation or saleableness of his paper was injured by this excess of advertisements, and his own rates for advertising furnish no criterion for estimating his damages.</p>

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 29th October, 1880, by Bichard Prewitt, against Mrs. Caroline Ashford and others; and sought principally to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a decree rendered by said Chancery Court, on the 12th March, 1877, in favor of Mrs. Ashford, against said Prewitt. The complainant died pending the suit, and it was thereupon revived in the name of A. Heflin as his administrator.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. Tbis action was brought by Clark & Wadsworth, suing as partners, against Wm. B. Jones, and was commenced on the 20th September, 1886.

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. This action was brought by Charles L. Davis, against Samuel Curry and W. C. Hester, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint, and was commenced on the 24th February, 1887. The land had belonged to Edward Davis, deceased, who was the father of the plaintiff; and each party asserted title under him.

Appeal Rom the Circuit Court of Coosa. Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. The appellees in this case, Hudmon Brothers & Co., obtained a judgment on the 4th August, 1883, before a justice of the peace in said county, against Lewis S. Driver, for $100, with costs; and thereupon sued out a garnishment against Lehman, Durr & Co., as the debtors of said Driver.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. This action was brought by Nat. K. Snodgrass, against James E. Perkerson, and was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 9th November, 1885. The various defenses set up, and the rulings of the lower court thereon, appear in the opinion. cited Code, 1886, § 2995; Wade on Attachments, § 209; Wright v. Snedecor, 46 Ala. 92; Posey v. Pressley, 60 Ala. 251; Otisv.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by the appellant, a Massachusetts corporation, against W. R. Dowling; and was founded on the defendant’s promissory note for $48, which was dated March 6th, 1885, and payable on the 15th October.

Heard before the Hon. John, Moore. In the matter of the petition of Robert E. Dunn and F. M. Fletcher, addressed to the presiding judge of the fourth judicial circuit, for the writs of certiorari and supersedeas, addressed to the “Court of County Revenues of Wilcox county,” for the purpose of reviewing and quashing certain proceedings of said court declaring and establishing “Camden Beat” in said county as a stock district, within which stock shall not be permitted to run at…

Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden, The bill in this case was filed on the 30th May, 1885, by “Mrs. Lorena Grumpier, a minor under twenty-one years of age, and R. E. Orumpler, her husband,” against A. W. Deens and John R. Salter, as successive guardians of Mrs. Orumpler, and the sureties on their respective bonds as guardian; and sought a settlement of said guardians’ accounts, and especially in reference to their respective liability for four “Alabama State Bonds, Class…

Heard before the Hon. James A. Slater. In the matter of the petition of George D. Rickarby, to supersede and quash an execution which had been issued from said court against him and others, as sureties on the official bond of J. D. Robinson as administrator of the estate of Alex. Lawson, deceased, and levied on his property. The execution was in favor of E. McCall, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of said Alex. Lawson, and was issued on the 18th October, 1887.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Henry S. Zeigler against Henry W. Clark, to recover damages for an alleged breach of the covenants of warranty contained in a deed to a tract of land, which defendant had sold and conveyed to plaintiff.

Tried before tbe Hon. Sam. H. Sprott. Tbis action was brought by Mrs. Medora Perry, as administratrix of tbe estate of ber deceased… Held: or which might be afterwards held by him, against the company.” Said Caswell, who had been introduced as a witness by the plaintiff, testified on cross-examination, “that defendant had always been willing and anxious to give said Perry, or his representative, stock for all his proper claims against the company, but neither said Perry…

Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbabd. This action was brought by Mrs. Ida Lee, a married woman, suing by next friend as an infant, against W. C. Wood, the probate judge of the county, and the sureties on his official bond; and was commenced on the 4th March, 1887. The official bond on which the suit was founded, and which was set out in the complaint, was dated the 20th July, 1868, and was conditioned as required by the statute.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. This action was brought by the appellant, a domestic corporation, against John Gilliam, to recover the possession of a tract of land containing forty acres, which was described as “the north-west quarter of the north-west quarter of section five (5), in township thirteen (13) south, of range one (1) east;” and was commenced on the 5th January, 1882.

Tried before the Hon. JohnP. Hubbard. This action was brought by M. N. Carlisle against G. J. Cotton, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 26th March, 1887. The cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by the appellant, a corporation, against Isham Johnson, to recover the following personal property, as described in the complaint: “one red sorrel mule, one dark mare mule, one two-horse wagon, two cows, and one buggy.” There was a demurrer to the complaint, “on the ground of uncertainty in the description of the property;” and the demurrer having been overruled, the cause was tried on issue joined.

Tried before tbe Hon. H. A. Sharpe. Action for damages for personal injuries, by Armstead Hubbard, against the appellant corporation. The material facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. Tbis action was brought by G. W. Segrest, against J. H. Baxley and others, to recover damages for the wrongful and vexatious suing out of an attachment against said Segrest, at the suit of said Baxley, the other defendants being sureties on the attachment bond. The attachment bond, on which the suit was founded, was dated the 14th December, 1887, and was conditioned in the words of the statute.

Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael. This action was brought by Charles King, against James A. Paulk and others, to recover the possession of a tract of land particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 11th January, 1888.

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Mrs. Ida Lee, a married woman, suing by her next friend, against Jonathan Williams and another, to recover the possession of a tract of land, with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 27th October, 1885. The tract of land contained one hundred and sixty (160) acres, and was a submission of section six (6), of township eight (8), range twenty-three (23).

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to several mules, a yoke’of oxen, wagon, and other articles, between W. H. Burgess, plaintiff in attachment against John T. Boberts, and Mrs. Dora Boberts as claimant, who was the wife of said John T. The plaintiff’s attachment was sued out on the 21st October, 1886, and was levied on the same day.

<p> Garnishment by Attaching Creditorsj Contest of Garnishee's Answer. </p> <p>1. Sale by insolvent debtor to creditor; validity as against other creditors. — An insolvent debtor may sell and transfer to one of his creditors, in absolute payment of a bona fide existing debt, his entire stock of goods and other property ; and if the value of the properly is not in excess of the debt, and no use or benefit is reserved to the debtor himself, the conveyance will be sustained as against other creditors.</p> <p>2. Bill of sale construed. — Where a bill of sale of a stock of goods recites an indebtedness by the grantors to the grantees, and declares that, for the purpose of paying the same, they bargain, sell and deliver, “in full satisfaction and payment of said indebtedness,” their entire stock of goods, “and for the same purpose have also conveyed to them certain real estate in Verbena, by a separate deed, and do transfer to them our [their] notes and book-accountsthe latter stipulations are not inconsistent with the former, but the instrument shows that all the property conveyed by both deeds, the value being less than the amount of the indebtedness, was conveyed and accepted in full payment and satisfaction of the debt.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Sam. H. Spbott. This action was brought by Isaac Cannon, against Levi Lindsey; and was founded on the defendant’s promissory note for $75, which was dated December 30th, 1878, and payable twelve months after date, to the order of Moses Walters & Co., by whom it was assigned to said Isaac Cannon. The action was commenced in a justice’s court, and was removed by appeal into the Circuit Court.

Tried before tbe H011. Sam. H. Sprott. This action was brought by ¥m. H. Propst, a minor, suing by next friend, against tbe appellant corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while engaged, as alleged, in its service as brakeman; and was commenced on tbe 31st December, 1886. Tbe case was before this court on a former day of tbe term, on appeal by tbe defendant ; wben the judgment was reversed, and tbe cause remanded. — 83 Ala. 518-28.

John B. Tally. This action was brought by Benj. F. Smith against the appellant railroad company, to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of plaintiff’s cow by defendant’s engine and train of cars; and was commenced before a justice on the 21st June, 1886. In the Circuit Court, on appeal, the cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 31st March, 1885, by William M. Beatty against Bandall B. Brown, and sought particularly to have a written agreement between the parties construed and enforced as a contract of sale, creating an equitable mortgage for the purchase-money; also, to have the lands sold for the payment of the balance due, as ascertained on an account to be stated by the register, and for an injunction of several actions…

Leroy F. Box, This action was brought by E. W. Teague against Richard. Bell, and was commenced on the 27th May, 1884. The complaint contained the common counts, and a special count which sought to enforce a statutory lien on a house and lot, particularly described, for work done and materials furnished by plaintiff in the erection of the house, under a contract with defendant.

Box presiding. Tbe record in tbis case shows these facts: On tbe 19th May, 1884, M. L. Armstrong, as administrator of tbe estate of E. A. Armstrong, sued out an attachment against Chastain & Lawrence as partners, on tbe ground of their non-residence, returnable to tbe next term of tbe Circuit Court; but tbe attachment was returned without a levy.

Heard before tbe Hon. John A. Postee. Tbe original bill in tbis case was filed ontbe 16th March, 1877, by James Teal, as the administrator of the estate of B. B. Bass, deceased, against Alfred Holley and John Hamer; and sought to enforce a -vendor’s lien for the unpaid purchase-money of a tract of land. The material facts are stated in the several reports of the case on former appeals, this being the fourth — G3 Ala. 387; 68 Ala. 206; 82 Ala. 288.

Tried before tbe Hon. Jesse M. Cabmiohael. This action was brought by John F. Lewis, against A. M. Greene, to recover a Texas pony, with damages for its detention; and was commenced on tbe 10th April, 1885. Tbe cause was tried on issue joined on tbe plea of not guilty, and resulted in a verdict for tbe plaintiff, under tbe rulings of tbe court; the jury assessing tbe value of tbe pony at $75, and tbe damages for its -detention at $50.

Tried before the Hon. J. M. CARMICHAEL. This action was brought by M. W. Thompson against J. T. Lassiter, and was commenced on the 15th September, 1885.

Tried before tbe Hon. JOHN B. Tally. Tbe appellant in tbis case, C. F. Sbarpe, applied by petition addressed to tbe presiding judge of tbe circuit, for a supersedeas of an execution for costs, wbicb bad been issued on a judgment of tbe Circuit Court, rendered against him and others, on tbe 5th March, 1884, in favor of B. B. Wharton.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. The appellant in this case, John Ramagnano, applied by petition to Hon. E. F. Ciiooe, judge of probate of said county, for a license to retail spirituous liquors; and a license having been refused, he then applied by petition to the Circuit Court, for a mandamus to the probate judge. On the hearing, his petition was refused and dismissed; and the judgment dismissing it is here assigned as .error.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy E. Box. This action was brought by Robert S. Steele, against Thos. P. Savage, to recover damages for a malicious prosecution; and was commenced on the 4th January, 1886. An amended complaint was filed on the 22d August, 1887; to which the defendant demurred, because it showed on its face that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations of one year.

Heard before the Hon. H. A. ShaRPE. The bill in this case was filed on the 15th November, 1886, by Mrs. Nancy J. Hamaker, suing by her next friend, against her husband, William Hamaker, and Mrs. Martha Beagan, his daughter by a former wife; and sought to establish a resulting trust in a tract of land, which said William Hamaker had bought Horn one John H. Eubanks, taking the conveyance to himself for life, with remainder to his said daughter.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. W. ColeMAN. The bill in this case was filed on the 2d July, 1887, by Thomas H. Patterson, against Thomas Bragg, Willis N. Bragg, Bobert J. Carson, John C. Pritchett, and J. N. Miller as guardian of James Dear, a minor; and sought to set aside, as fraudulent, a conveyance executed by said Thomas Bragg to Willis N. Bragg and Carson, and to subject the property conveyed to the satisfaction of two judgments, wbieb bad been recovered against tbe…

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Shabpe. The bill in this case was filed on the 4th August, 1886, by Frank Anthe and wife, againt Frank Heide and wife and one John Knaus; and sought to establish a resulting trust in a city lot in Birmingham, to the extent of an undivided one-half interest, as per the terms of an alleged verbal agreement between said Anthe and Heide, to the effect that the purchase should be made on joint account, each paying one-half of the purchase money, and…

Tried before the Hon Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by the partners composing the late partnership of R. M. Greene & Co., against J. C. Thompson, to recover a mule, with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 29th December, 1884.

Appeal Horn tbe Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before tbe Hon. James W. Lapsley. Tbis action was brought by .Mrs. Henrietta J. Sturdevant, against W. T. Powell; and was commenced on tbe 17tb October, 1885, before a justice of tbe peace. Tbe justice rendered judgment for tbe plaintiff, for tbe premises, and $ 100 damages, and tbe defendant took an appeal to tbe Circuit Court, executing two appeal bonds, eacb witb H. O’Gwynn and A. F. Wise as sureties.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dale.</p> <p>Tried before H. L. Martin, Esq., as special judge.</p> <p>cited Key v. Jones, 52 Ala. 238; Ala. Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Sledge, 62 Ala. 566; Kumpe v. Coons, 63 Ala. 448; Dismukes v. Tolson & Barrett, 67 Ala. 386.</p>

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by R. C. Cantelou, against I). C. Whitley, to recover an undivided one-fourth interest in several small lots in Birmingham, with damages for the detention thereof; and was commenced on the 1st November, 1887. The plaintiff was one of the four children of Mrs. Josie R. Cantelou, who died, intestate, on the 9th September, 1881, and to whom the lots belonged at the time of her death.

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

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe.. The bill in this case was filed on the 6th April, 1887, by James T. Stubbs, against Thomas J. Byars, and sought the specific performance of an agreement in writing, by which the defendant gave the complainant an option to become the purchaser of his interest in a certain tract of land near Birmingham, containing about 120 acres.

Heard before tbe Hon. Thomas Cobbs. Tbe bill in this case was filed on tbe 2d December, 1885, by Mrs. Mary A. Wood, against Alex. Craft, Mrs. Angeline Craft, and W. T. Branham; and sought to set aside and cancel a conveyance of a tract of land, which the complainant had executed to Mrs. Craft and said Branham. The tract of land contained two hundred acres, and was the complainant’s homestead at the time of the sale and conveyance.

Tried before the Hon. JOHN B. Tally. This action was brought by John T. Pearce, against A. M. Morgan and others, tenants in possession, to recover a house and lot in the town of Oxford, particularly described in the complaint; and was commenced on the 7th July, 1885. John E. Smith intervened as the landlord of the tenants in possession, and the cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty.

Tried before tbe Hon. John Moore. Tbe charge of tbe court decided, as matter of law, tbat tbe injury to tbe plaintiff was not caused by any “defect in tbe ways, works, maebinery or plant” of tbe defendant’s road; or, if any such defect existed, tbat tbe defendant was not chargeable with knowledge or notice thereof; or, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

Tried before the Hon. Sam. H. Spbott. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to about seventeen boxes of boots and shoes, between Lehman, Durr & Co., plaintiffs in attachment against Weil & Stern, and Wollner & Lowenstein as claimants, The defendants in attachment were merchants, carrying on business at Benton, Lowndes county; Lehman, Durr & Co. were commission-merchants in Montgomery, and Wollner & Lowenstein were wholesale merchants in Mobile.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken. This action was brought by D. B. Loveman & Co., suing as a partnership, against O. L. Hall, A. H. Mackey, and L. C. Hall, as partners composing the late firm of Hall, Mackey & Co.; and was commenced on the 9th December, 1884. The complaint contained only the common count for goods sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendants, “on or about April 25th, 1884, and falling due on June 24th, 1884,” amounting to $302.39.

Heard, before tbe Hon. H. A. Sharpe. Tbe bill in tbis case was bled on tbe 8tb February, 1887, by W. H. Williams and A. H. Jonesj against 0. A. Jobnston and H. B. Jobnston, and sought tbe specibc performance of a contract for tbe sale of a tract or lot of land, wbicb tbe complainants claimed to bave bought from tbe defendants. Tbe land was a lot in Birmingbam, one hundred feet square; tbe agreed price being $16,000, of wbicb $4,000 was to be paid in cash.

Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. This action was brought by W. D. Cheatham, against the Central Bailroad & Banking Company of Georgia, a foreign corporation, and the Montgomery & Eufaula Bailway Company, a domestic corporation controlled by said Georgia corporation; and was commenced on the 15th September, 1887.

Heard before tbe Hon. F. C. Bandolph. In tbe matter of tbe insolvent estate of Bartholomew Boyle, deceased, on tbe petition of W. L. Chandler, as administrator de bonis non, for an order to sell certain lands for tbe payment of debts, which petition was contested by tbe children and heirs at law of said decedent.

Heard before tbe Hon. Thos. ~W. Coleman. Tbe bill in tbis case was filed on tbe 8tb February, 1887, in tbe name of Sumter County, against Tbomas M. Brunson and David W. Mitcbell, with tbe sureties on tbeir official bonds as tax-collector and county treasurer respectively; and prayed relief as follows: “Tbat tbe said Mitcbell and Brunson eacb discover under oatb wbat, if any, of tbe funds in bis bands in bis official capacity be bas used, loaned out, converted, or permitted…

Erom the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The indictment in this case was found at the July term, 1887, of said court, and charged tbe defendant with playing a game of cards at some one of tbe public bouses or places specified in tbe statute.

From: the Circuit Court of Escambia. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. The defendant in this case, Charles Kennedy, was indicted for the murder of William E. Perry, by shooting him with a pistol; was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. The killing occurred on a railroad train running from Mobile to Montgomery, on which both the defendant and the deceased were travelling.

From- the Circuit Court of Conecuh. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. The defendant in this case was indicted for the murder of William Luckey. by shooting him with a gun; was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of ten years.

From the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington.

From the Criminal Court of Jefferson. Tried before the Hon. Samuel E. Greene. The indictment in this case was returned into court on the 11th .October, 1887, and charged that the defendant, Jesse Todd, “did carnally know, or abuse in the attempt to carnally know,” a female child under the age of ten years.

Heard before the Hon. O. J. Semmes. The appellant in this case, Joseph J. Smith, an engineer in the employment of the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, was arrested under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace in Mobile, on a charge of handling, driving and operating an engine pulling a passenger train on -the road of said company, not having been duly examined and licensed as required by the act of the General Assembly approved February 28th, 1887, entitled “An act to…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 5th August, 1885, by Mrs. Anne E. Bavis, a married woman, suing by her husband as next friend, against George N. Trawick and others; and sought to set aside and cancel certain conveyances, copies of which were made exhibits to the bill, and to have the property conveyed, with other personal property bélonging to the estate of Mrs. Lucinda Trawick, deceased, who was the wife of said George N. Trawick…

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. Action on policy of insurance against fire, commenced October 1st, 1886; plea of general issue, and special plea of forfeiture; verdict and judgment for plaintiff, under charges of court, which are now assigned as error, with rulings in admission of evidence. The opinion states the material facts, and makes it unnecessary to set out the numerous rulings to which exceptions were reserved.

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. This action was brought by J. E. Sistrunk, to recover damages on account of injuries to two mules, which were run over by an engine with tender attached belonging to defendant, one of them being killed; and was commenced on the 6th February, 1888. In the original summons and complaint the defendant was described as “the Western Railway of Alabama,” without other descriptive words.

Tried before, the Hon. James R. Dowdell. This action was brought by John T. Muse against S. D. Dantzler, was commenced on the 29th March, 1887, and was founded on the defendant’s writing obligatory, or promissory note under seal, which is copied in the opinion of the court. The defendant pleaded, “in short by consent,” a failure of consideration; and issue was joined on this plea, after demurrer overruled.

Heard before the Hon. F. C. Randolph. cited Bishop v. Lalouette, 67 Ala. 197; Eq. Life Ins. Society v. Vogel, 76 Ala. 441. On the death of an intestate, the title to his lands descends at once to his heirs, and vests absolutely in them, subject only to the statutory charge or liability for debts.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed in March, 1887, by the partners composing the late firm of G. W. Kelly & Co., against W. W. Woodall, J. S. Woodall, F. B. Woodall, L. T. Woodall, C. Y. Atkinson, and J. E. Windham; and sought to enforce a vendor’s lien on a tract of land, for a part of the purchase-money alleged to be unpaid.

Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box. This action was brought by C. J. Truett, against William Bishop, to recover the possession of a tract of land, with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 22d July, 1887.

Heard before tbe Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. Tbe bill in tbis case was filed on tbe 27tb December, 1886, by John E. Harmon, against Lehman, Durr & Go., partners in trade as warehousemen and commission-merchants in tbe city of Montgomery; and sought to enjoin a sale of lands under a mortgage which the complainant and his wife had executed to the defendants, and for an account and redemption, charging usury.

Heard, before tbe Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 28th November, 1885, by Mrs. Cordelia C. Smith, the wife of Stephen L. Smith, against her said husband and the several partners composing the firm of Lehman, Durr & Co., warehousemen and commission-merchants in the city of Montgomery; and sought to establish a resulting trust, to the extent of a one-half interest, in a tract of land which Lehman, Durr & Co. had sold under a mortgage executed to…

Heard, before tbe Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. The bill in tbis case was filed on tbe loth October, 1886, by Mrs. Kate McDonnell and others, holders of policies issued by tbe Alabama Gold Life Insurance Company, against tbe said corporation, certain stockholders of tbe corporation, and A. P. Bush, as trustee under a general asssignment executed to him by tbe corporation, on the 8th October, 1886, in trust for tbe benefit of its creditors; and sought, principally, to enforce…

<p>Appeal from the Chancery Court of Elmore.</p> <p>Heard before the Hon. S. K. MoSpadden.-</p>

Heard before the Hon. S. K. MoSpaddeN. The bill in this case was filed on the 24th December, 1884, by Mrs. Octavia Cook, a married woman, who had been relieved of the disabilities of coverture, against Meyer Brothers, partners in trade as merchants; and sought to establish the complainant’s alleged equitable title to a mare and two colts, and to enjoin an action at law which the defendants had brought to recover the animals.

Tried before tbe Hon. Sam. H. Spbott. This action was brought by George N. Gilmer, against tbe Mobile & Montgomery Railway Company, as tbe assignee and successor of tbe Alabama & Florida Railroad Company, to recover damages for alleged breaches of covenants; and was commenced on tbe 30th March, 1885.

Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. This action was brought by James T. May, against Walter Brothers and others, and was founded on an injunction bond.

Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. These two cases were argued and submitted together, involving the same principles, and depending substantially on the same facts. In each case, the plaintiffs were merchants in the city of Montgomery, suing on the common counts for goods sold and delivered to Mrs. Efiie Young, the defendant, who was a married woman.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by E. P. DuBose against the appellants, to recover damages for their alleged conversion of two bales of cotton; and was commenced on the 15th April, 1881.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. The bill in this case was filed on the 24th August, 1885, by H. H. Dilburn, against Youngblood & Co. as a partnership and individually, and against Peter Lee, a freedman; and sought to compel the specific performance of a written agreement, by which said Youngblood & Co. promised to transfer to him a certain crop-lien note given to them by said Peter Lee, and which was also signed by complainant as his surety, together with a mortgage…

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case was filed on the 3d June, 1885, by B. W. Mason, as the executor of the last will and testament of Aug. Jeter, deceased, against the legatees and devisees under the will, and asked a judicial construction of the will, and the instructions of the court in the performance of his duties as executor. The provisions of the will are all stated in the opinion o£ the court.

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by Mrs. Mary H. Cogsbill against the appellant, a domestic corporation, to recover the possession of a small strip of land, with damages for its detention; and was commenced on the 19th March, 1888.

Heard before the Hon. S. H MoSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 2d March, 1885, by Thomas Perdue, against Brooks Brothers as partners; and sought to have a conveyance, which was in form an absolute deed, declared a mortgage, and for an account and redemption under it; and it also prayed an injunction, or restraining order, to prevent the defendants from cutting timber on the mortgaged lands, or from disturbing the complainant’s possession.

Heard before the Hon. John A. Foster. The bill in this case tvas filed on the 28th February, 1888, by Jack Jones and his sister, only children and heirs at law of their deceased mother, Mrs. Jane Jones, against J. C. Richardson, -as executor of the last will and testament of John T. Perry, deceased, with the devisee under his will; and sought to have a conveyance, which was absolute on its face, declared a mortgage, and for an account and redemption.

Tried before f Ton. John P Tally. This action wu.- Drought by P. W. Keith, against the appellants, 'Prcantile partnership, to recover damages for the allegea illegal seizure of a stock of goods, which the plaintiff had purchased from one C. M. Pennell, and on which an attachment vas levied, at the suit of the defendants, as the property -'f said Eennell..

Heard before the Hon. John A. Poster. The bill in this case was filed on the 26th December, 1884, by J. N. Barker and wife, against W. S. Eeese and wife; and sought to subject certain lands, held by Mrs. Eeese as an equitable separate estate, to the payment of a promissory note for $3,240, which was signed “Af. L. Reese, bj W. 8. Reese, trustee.” The chancellor rendered a decree in favor of the complainants, and it is now assigned as error by Mrs. Eeese.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. W. ColeMAN. The bill in this case was filed on the 13th May, 1887, by John F. Jewett, against McMillan & Son, as partners and individually'; and sought to have a conveyance, executed by complainant to defendants, declared a mortgage, and for an account and redemption.

Tried before tbe Hon. JOHN B. Tally. Tbis action was brought by A. J. Hembree, against tbe appellant corporation, to recover damages for killing a mare, tbe property of plaintiff. Tbe circumstances attending tbe killing, as disclosed by tbe evidence on the trial, are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

equity. Heard before tbe Hon. H. A. Shaepe. Tbe bill in tbis case was filed on tbe 28tb April, 1888, in the name of Jefferson county as complainant, against S. B>.

Feom the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. JohNP. Hubbard. The appellants in this case commenced suit by summons and complaint, on the 13th February, 1888, against the Southern Railway Construction and Land Company, a private corporation, organized under the general statutes; and, on the same day, sued out process of garnishment against M. P. LeGrand, Jr., and others, as debtors of said corporation.

<p>Appeal from the City Court of Birmingham.</p> <p>Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe.</p> <p>cited 17 Pick. 78; 1 Sutherland on Damages, 19, 20, 24, 27.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. This action was brought by Albert Beese, against the appellant corporation, to recover damages for injuries caused by fire, which was charged to have originated from sparks emitted from an engine running on the defendant’s railroad track; and was commenced on the 16th October, 1886. The cause was tried on issue joined on the plea of not guilty, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, for $40.

Tried before tbe Hon. Leroy E. Box. Tbis action was brought by Robert L. Black, against tbe Pratt Coal and Coke Company, to recover tbe possession of a tract of land particularly described in tbe complaint; and was commenced on tbe 23d April, 1887. Tbe defendant pleaded not guilty, and tbe statutes of limitation of ten and twenty years; and tbe cause was tried on issue joined on these pleas.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by E. S. Little and others, suing as trustees of the “Mount Pleasant Baptist Church,” against C. Q. Allison, to recover the statutory penalty for cutting trees on certain land belonging to the church; and was commenced on the 13th January, 1886.

Tried, before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by Joseph L. Crudup, against the appellant, as the owner and publisher of a newspaper in the city of Birmingham, called the Birmingham Age, to recover damages for the publication of an alleged libel of and concerning him, which, as set out in the complaint, was in these words: “Crudup’s clutch on his friends, which caused them to trust him, and get left.

Heard before the Hon. Thos. W. Coleman. The bill in this case was filed on the 24th November, 1886, by Bichard G. Pegram, as executor of the last will and testament of John D. Bagland, deceased, under appointment from the proper court in Virginia, of which State the testator was a resident at the time of his death, though he died in Mobile, Alabama, in April, 1872; against Fred.

<p> Bill in Equity for Injunction to protect Exclusive Easement. </p> <p>1. Equitable relief by injunction, in aid of exclusive easement or privilege. — A court of equity will interfere by injunction, at the suit of a lessee who claims an exclusive privilege, or right to carry on a particular business on the leased premises, to prevent another lessee, having notice of that right or privilege, from making an improper use of his own rented premises in violation of that right or privilege; the jurisdiction being analogous to the remedy by specific performance, and also founded on the necessity of preventing a constantly recurring grievance, resulting from a continuous breach of covenant, which can not be adequately compensated by an action for damages at law.</p> <p>2. Same. — The lessee defendant having sold to his sub-lessee, by contract for a definite time, the right tc carry on the business in violation of plaintiff’s exclusive privilege, the latter can not complain of the dissolution of the temporary injunction as against said lessee, when he does not keep the injunction in force as against the sub-lessee; for the court will not, by injunction, compel one defendant to commit a trespass or injury on another.</p>

Heard before the Hon. S. K. MoSpadden. The bill in this case was filed on the 1st January, 1883, by Moses Simmons, against James A. Dudley, late tax-collector of said county, the sureties on his official bond, and several persons who had bought property from him; and sought to subject the property of said Dudley, and the property of the sureties so far as necessary, to the payment of a judgment which the county had recovered against them for an official default on his part,…

Prom the Chancery Court of Montgomery. Heard before the Hon. John A. Poster. These two cases were argued and submitted together, involving the same legal questions, and substantially the same facts.

<p> Action on Common Counts; Plea of Set-off. </p> <p>1. Liquidated damages, or penalty; general rules. — In construing a stipulation in a written contract for the' payment of a specified sum of money on a contingency, with a view to determine whether it is to be regarded as liquidated damages or as a penalty, the authorities establish the following general rules, “each having more or less weight according to the peculiar circumstances of the case and the nature of the contract to be construed</p> <p>“1. _ The court will always seek to ascertain the true and real ■ intention of the contracting parties, giving due weight to the language or words used in the contract, but not always being absolutely controlled by them, when the enforcement of such contract operates with unconscionable hardship, or otherwise -works an injustice.</p> <p>“2. The mere denomination of the sum to be paid as liquidated damages, or as a penalty, is not conclusive on the court as to its real character. Although designated as liquidated damages, it maybe construed as a penalty; and often, when called a penalty, it may be held to be liquidated damages, when the intention to the contrary is plain.</p> <p>“3. The courts are disposed to lean against any interpretation of a contract which will make it liquidated damages; and in all cases of doubtful intention, will pronounce the stipulated sum a penalty.</p> <p>“4. Where the payment of a smaller sum is secured by an obligation to pay a larger sum, it will be held a penalty, and not liquidated damages.</p> <p>“5. Where the agreement is for the performance or non-performance of a single act, or of several acts, or of several things which are but minor parts of a single complex act, and the precise damage resulting from the violation of each covenant is wholly uncertain, or incapable of being ascertained save by conjecture, the parties may agree on a fixed sum as liquidated damages, and the courts will so construe it, unless it is clear, on other grounds, that a penalty was really intended.</p> <p>“6. When the contract provides for the performance of several acts of different degrees of importance, and the damages resulting from the violation of some, although not all of the provisions, are of easy ascertainment, and one large gross sum is stipulated to be paid for the breach of any, it will be construed a penalty, and not as liquidated damages.</p> <p>“7. When the agreement provides for the performance of one or more acts, and the stipulation is to pay the same gross sum for a partial as for a total or complete breach of performance, the sum will be construed to be a penalty.</p> <p>“8. Whether the sum agreed to be paid is out of proportion to the actual damages which will probably be sustained by a breach, is a fact into which the court will not enter on inquiry, if the intent is otherwise made clear that liquidated damages and not a penalty is in contemplation.</p> <p>“9. Where the agreement is in the alternative, to do one of two acts, but is to pay a larger sum of money in the one event than in the other, the obligor having his election to do either, the amount thus agreed to be paid will be held liquidated damages, and not a penalty.</p> <p>“10. In applying these rules, the controlling purpose of which is to ascertain the real intention of the parties, the court will consider the nature of the contract, the terms of the whole instrument, the consequences naturally resulting from a breach of its stipulations, and the peculiar circumstances surrounding the transaction; thus permitting each case to stand, as far as possible, on its own merits and peculiarities.”</p> <p>2. Same; case at bar. — On (he dissolution of a mercantilé partnership between plaintiff and defendant, the latter buying out the interest of the former, assuming the debts, continuing the business, and employing the former as business manager at a stipulated salary payable monthly; a stipulation in the written contract between them, by which plaintiff covenanted to wholly abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors, or to forfeit and pay one thousand dollars “as liquidated damages,” is construed to mean liquidated damages, and not a mere penalty.</p>

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

Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. The bill in this case was filed on the 25th April, 1883, by H. B. Lansden and others, children and heirs of Mrs. Martha W. Lansden, deceased, against Hugh P. Bone; and sought to have a certain conveyance of land, which Mrs. Lansden and her husband had executed to the defendant, declared a mortgage only, and cancelled as a cloud on their title.

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. The bill in this case was filed on the 13th April, 1888, by J. F. Dennis, against J. P. Mudd, and the East Birmingham Land Company, a private corporation; and sought to compel the transfer, on the books of the corporation, of a certificate for ten shares of stock, of which the complainant claimed to be the owner, and to compel the delivery of the certificate to him by said Mudd, who had possession of it under claim of ownership.

Tried before tbe Hon. H. C. Speake. This action was brought by John W. Kelly, against W. R. Bryan and the sureties on his official bond as constable; and was commenced on the 11th of December, 1885.

Tried before tbe Hon. Sam. H. Sprott. This action was brought by Mrs. Annie E. Grace, tbe wife of B. E. Grace, to recover tbe possession of a tract of land particularly described in tbe complaint; and was commenced on tbe 10th February, 1888. Mrs. E. F. Maxwell intervened as landlord of tbe tenant in possession, and pleaded not guilty; and the cause was tried on issue joined on tbat plea.

<p> Petition by Administrator, for Sale of Lands for Distribution. </p> <p>1. Sufficiency of petition; averment as to names of heirs. — In a petition by an administrator for the sale of lands for equitable division, an averment that Lewis N. and Nancy N. “'‘claim to be the lawful heirs and distributees of said decedent, and he states to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and after diligent search, that they are the only heirs at law and distributees of the said decedent,” is a sufficient compliance with the statutory requisition (Code, \ 2106), and gives the court jurisdiction to order a sale.</p> <p>2. Malting parties to petition. — If the administrator’s petition purports to set out the names of all the heirs and distributees, but in fact omiis one or more, the persons so omitted may intervene by petition, and ask to be made parties, in order that they may contest the application for an order of sale; but it is error to dismiss the administrator’s petition, because a person who is not named as one of the heirs claims to be the sole heir, but adduces no evidence of his right or claim.</p>

Tried before the Hon. Jesse M.' Carmichael. In this case, three several actions were brought by S. H. Hill, suing as surviving partner, against C. W. Nelms; each being commenced in a justice’s court, and founded on a promissory note executed by defendant, of which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner by assignment. The three cases were consolidated in the Circuit Court, and the defendant interposed a special plea of set-off.

<p> Statutory Actioii in nature of Ejectment. </p> <p>1. Unrecorded deed; statutory protection to purchasers without notice. As against subsequent purchasers and judgment creditors without notice, an unrecorded deed is inoperative and void (Code, §§ 1810-11); and possession, acquired or held under it, charges a purchaser or creditor with constructive notice, only when there is an actual change of possession.</p> <p>2. Testimony of party interested, as to transactions with decedent. — In ejectment by the heirs or devisees of a deceased purchaser at execution sale, against a person in possession who claims under a prior unrecorded deed from the defendant in execution, which contains the usual covenants of warranty, but was not accompanied with any actual change of possession ; said grantor and defendant in execution, being only liable on his covenants of warranty, has no pecuniary interest in the result of the suit, and is not disqualified (Code, § 2765) to testify that he gave notice of the unrecorded deed to the purchaser at execution sale prior to the rendition of his judgment.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Chancery Court of Chambers.</p> <p>Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden.</p>

Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael. /This action was brought by J. J. Yarbrough against Lee County, to recover damages for the loss of a horse, which had been killed by falling through a public bridge across Wacoochee Creek in the county; and was commenced on the 12th April, 1881. “The undisputed facts of the case,” as agreed on, were thus stated: “Some years prior to the commencement of this suit, a bridge across Wacoochee Creek in said county, on the public road…

<p> Action on Common Counts, and on Promissory Note. </p> <p>1. Waiver of defective service by general appearance. — A general appearance, and participation in the trial of the cause on its merits, is a waiver of any defect in the service of the summons and complaint, and may even dispense with the necessity for the service of any process.</p> <p>2. Waiver of demurrer. — When the judgment-entry does not show any ruling by the court on a demurrer to the complaint, or that its action thereon was invoked by the defendant, while the cause was tried on issue joined on pleas to the merits, it will be presumed that the demurrer was waived.</p> <p>3. Consolidation of causes. — Two or more causes pending in the court at the same time, between the same parties, and based on similar causes of action ex contractu, may properly be consolidated by order of the court (Code, § 2742); and the judgment-entry reciting that they were consolidated by consent of the parties, neither one of them can complain of it.</p>

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

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley. This action was brought by Robinson & Ledyard, suing as partners, against P. S. Holt; and was commenced by attachment, sued out on the 3d November, 1887, before the clerk of the Circuit Court.

Tried before tbe Hon. S. E. Greene. Tbe appellee in tbis case, E. W. Beall, applied by petition to tbe judge of said Criminal Court, for a writ of prohibition against John Morris, a justice of tbe peace of tbe county, to prevent bim from further proceeding in a cause pending before him, on tbe ground that tbe justice resided and bad bis office outside of tbe ward or precinct for which be was appointed.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe. This action was brought by William A. Bicketts, to recover damages for personal injuries in attempting to step from a street car alleged to belong to the defendant corporation. The injury occurred on the 4th March, 1887, and the action was commenced on the 14th July, 1887.

Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. This was a statutory trial of the right of property in and to a yoke of oxen, between Albert G. Henry, plaintiff in execution against Calvin Bush, and Mrs. Minerva Bush, the wife of said Calvin, as claimant; and originated in a justice’s court, where the claim was filed on the 21st May, 1886.

Tried before tbe Hon. John B. Tally. • Tbis action was brought by Caldwell Brothers, suing as partners, against the appellant, a private corporation engaged in the business of insurance against fire; was founded on a policy of insurance on a stock of goods, issued by the defendant on the 3d May, 1884, in favor of Snodgrass & Caldwell, and was commenced on the 4th March, 1885.

Heard before the Hon. H. A. Shajípe. The bill in this case was filed on the 6th February, 1888, by Fred. G. Sheppard, against Newcomb F. Thompson and J. N. Rutledge; and sought to enforce a vendor’s lien for the unpaid purchase-money of land, which the complainant had sold and conveyed to said Thompson.

Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Armngton. Tbis action was brought by Ur. Benj. J. Baldwin, against tbe appellant corporation, to recover tbe sum of $1,300 “for services rendered by plaintiff for defendant in tbe examination of defendant’s employees for color blindness;” and was commenced on tbe 8th October, 1887.