Imágenes de páginas



109. Sanders vs. Ward-Manumission, 25, 430.

133. Price vs. The State-A demand for trial, to entitle the accused to a discharge under the 18th section of the 14th division of the Penal

Code, must be made not later than the Second Term after the indictment is found, 26, 232.

141. Walker vs. Wells-Case again up, and prior judgment explained, 26, 390.

228. Rome Railroad vs. Sullivan-In this case it was held that a declaration alleging that the defendant received cotton to be delivered to R. & C., at Charleston, S. C., was not supported by evidence that the cotton was to be delivered to the Agent of the South Carolina' Railroad at Augusta. After this decision by the Supreme Court, an amendment to the declaration was allowed in the Court below, making the declaration conform to the facts as proven, 28, 29. 237. Mickelberry vs. Shannon-A note was made by two persons, one as principal and the other as surety, for the hire of a negro for a given year. The negro having been previously hired to another, the note was returned to the surety, and thus became functus officio. The surety afterwards re-issued it for value to a stranger.-Held that the latter (especially if he had knowledge of all the facts) could not recover on it against the surety, 28, 37.

337. Dorsett vs. Frith-In an action of trover to recover for the conversion of slaves by one as executor de son tort, if the slaves were sold fairly by the defendant, and cannot be re-delivered, the measure of damage is the price they brought, with interest, 80, 795.

622. Bryan vs. Rooks-If a wife entitled to a legacy dies before the husband reduces it to possession, and the husband afterwards dies, and a stranger administers on the wife's estate, the administrator will hold in trust for the husband's heirs or legatees, 29,735; 30,77. 625. Russell vs. Arnold-The Act of 1845, exempting the daily, weekly, or monthly wages of journeymen-mechanics and day laborers, from garnishment, is not repealed by the repealing Section of the general attachment Act of 1856, 26, 115–17.

641. Strauss vs. Waldo-One of two sued as partners, pleads, under oath, denying that he was a partner at the time the note was given. This casts upon the plaintiff the onus of proving the execution of the note by the defendant so pleading, or under his authority, 25, 609648. Hand vs. McKinney-Deed made in 1822; grant from the State issued in 1831; the deed recorded in May, 1836: This deed good against Sheriff's title made and recorded in December, 1837. The deed, (with purchase money paid,) passed more than an equitable title; under the Statute of uses, the title became complete, 29, 28.



132. Helms vs. O'Bannon-Perfect equity good in ejectment, 25.

651; 29, 28.

Possession may be looked to by the jury as evidence of notice to a junior purchaser, 29, 28, 121. (Same case.)

Deed made pending adverse possession Statute of 32 Hen. viii, 29, 121. (Same case.)

140. Parker vs. Jennings-Where there has been no service, the judgment is a nullity, and the defendant can take advantage of it by affidavit of illegality, 28, 496, 501.

177. McLeod vs. Bozeman Where the Legislature has not required a grant to be issued in order to convey land sold by the State, the sale may as well be authenticated by a certificate as by a grant, 27, 215 Grant is void, issued after same land has been sold, and conveyed by certificate, 29, 28.

197. Elfe vs. Cole-A mortgage deed is not a conveyance; it only creates a lien, 27,8 ,389.

220. Mariner vs. Rodgers-The obligor in a bond having stipulated to deliver the possession of a lot of land, parol evidence was admitted to show what estate was to accompany the possession. The measure of damages for a breach of such bond would depend on the quantity of this estate, 30, 516. (Same case.)

219. Smith vs. Walden-Award by two out of three arbitrators, not good, upon a submission under the Act of 1856, 31, 591.

250. Macon & W. R. R. vs. Winn-Where both parties are in fault, but the defendant more so than the plaintiff, the fault of the latter may go in mitigation of the damages, 27, 125, 361. See 28, 116. The fault of the plaintiff will not necessarily prevent a recovery, 28, 114. See 27, 113.

Case referred to on a point of evidence not reported, 27, 115. 390 Wells vs. Walker-Case again up, on new points, 29, 450, 485. Ponder vs. Cox-Adequacy of remedy in a Court of law. Amend

ment to complainant's bill suggested in the Supreme Court, so as to make the case one for Equity jurisdiction, 28, 307. (Same case.) 520. Andrews vs. Bonner-Case again up, on new points, 30, 287. 638. Sutton vs. McLeod-Copy grant is not admissible in evidence until excuse has been rendered for not producing the original; either the excuse recognized by the rule of Court, or that recognized by the common law, 27, 61.

704. Hook vs. Stovall-On the pleas of total and partial failure of consideration, in a suit upon a note given for the price of a slave warranted to be sound, the verdict cannot be for the plaintiff for the whole amount of the note, if the slave was diseased at the time of the warranty, 80, 420. (Same case.)

Rule as to measure of damages re-stated, and prior decision explained, 80, 420.



47. Semmes vs. Boykin-Equitable doctrine as to the distribution of several funds among different classes of creditors, 28, 377.

58. Brooking vs. Dearmond-Recovery in Ejectment cannot be had on a demise from one having no title. Judgment in action for land under Pleading Act of 1847 (Jones' Forms), upon whom conclusive, 80, 632. (Same case.)

113. Macon & W. R. R. vs. Davis-Declarations made too late to be admissible as a part of the res gestæ, 28, 95.

Plaintiff, (not guilty of gross negligence) though in fault, allowed to recover of Railroad Co. for an injury which the latter could have prevented by the use of ordinary diligence, 28, 95.

218. Dixon vs. Cuyler-Mortgagor may, at the second Term, show for cause why the rule to foreclose should not be made absolute, that the debt is usurious, or founded on a gaming consideration, or was contracted to compound a felony, or that the mortgage was given under duress, or that it has been released: He may avail himself of any defence which goes to show that the mortgagee is not entitled to a judgment of foreclosure, or that the amount claimed is not due, 30, 416. 259. McBain vs. Wimbish-Letters testamentary should be granted in the county of testator's residence, at the time of his death; and if a new county be formed including his residence, the proceedings may be transferred to it, 27, 636.

266. Robson vs. Jones-Case again up, on bill of review alleging fraud in procuring evidence, 80, 826.

280. Cook vs. Long-Notwithstanding the tenant may have had possession for seven years, if he disclaim title and declare his purpose to purchase of the true owner, the Statute of limitations will not protect him against the latter, 28, 136.

302. Thornton vs. Bussey-On the death, insolvent, of a member of two

partnerships also insolvent, the deceased partner's separate creditors must look for payment to his separate estate; and the creditors of each partnership, to the assets of that partnership to which they gave cr dit, respectively, 28, 377.



117. Dulin vs. Caldwell-Injunction against entering an award, will not be granted to one who has been negligent in guarding his rights, and whose losses, if any, have been occasioned by his failure to attend to his interests in proper time, 29, 362. (Same case.)

262. Doyal vs. Smith-Case mentioned, 81, 193.

Parol evidence is admissible to explain an equivocal clause in a wiil, 81, 201. (Same case.)

353. Johnson vs. Reese-Sheriff is liable for any loss occasioned by his failure to advertise his sales at three of the most public places in the county, 81, 603. (Case between same parties.)

392. Hopkins vs. Cooper-Misrepresentation as to the safety of crediting a person is too uncertain to become the basis of an action, unless some amount be indicated to which the credit may safely extend, 80, 93.

398. South Carolina R. R. vs. Moore-Award set aside for error apparent on its face, 29, 501.

486. Brown vs. Deloach-Father's liability for goods supplied to minor child-necessaries, 29, 374.

494. Tillman vs. Davis-Return on a writ, of service by the Sheriff, can

not be traversed except for fraud or collusion, 28, 531.

535. Tucker vs. Davidson-Appearance of principal in ca. sa, bond, at the Term at which he is bound to appear, is a discharge of his sureties, 30, 713.

597. Bond vs. Monroe-Case again up, on new point, 30, 630.



17. Dudley vs. Bradshaw-Deed of bargain and sale-Statute of uses, 29, 489.

Perfect equity, good as title in a Court of law, and available in ejectment, 29, 490.

82. Royston vs. Royston-Guardian is entitled to a commission on all sums of interest with which he is charged-rate of this commission, 29, 769.

Attorney's fees for services rendered guardian, etc., are collectable out of the estate represented, 31, 197.

185. Smith vs. Goode-Rule against one of several attorneys for plaintiff in judgment, who has collected the money, is a remedy by which his associates may enforce their liens on the money for their fees, 80, 240-1. (A branch of the same case.)

225. Goodwyn vs. Goodwyn-Case referred to, and some of the facts restated, 81, 270.

351. Camp vs. Matheson-Conditional payment-right to retain the payment and proceed to judgment on the debt, 80, 170. (Same case.)

490. Buchanan vs. Ford-Case up again, on another point, and the facts stated, 31, 386.

509. Lively vs. Harwell-When a will has been revoked by a subsequent will, the revocation of the latter does not, per se, revive the former, 30, 315. (Same case.)

526. Sanders vs. Johnson-Contract made on the Sabbath day, when valid, and when void, 81, 618.

« AnteriorContinuar »