صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

14. The statute 1828-29, defining the liability of indorsers, act upon the nature of contracts, and not merely upon the remedy for inforcing them; and so do not embrace the case of a note, assigned prior to their passage.

Bloodgood v. Cammack, 5 S. & P. 276. 15. The law never favors the repeal of a statute, by implication, even when there is a want of harmony among several on the same subject, unless the repugnance be apparent, or in their operation they be irreconcilable. Wyman et al. v. Campbell et al. 6 P. 219. 16. The statute of 1819, which provides that the borrower may establish a defence of usury, by his own oath in certain cases, does not extend to contracts made out of this State, by persons residing in other States. Wilson v. Walker, 3 S. 211. 17. Quere-Does the statute operate, where the original parties to the contract are dead, equally as if living?

Ibid. 18. The act of 1814, concerning attachments, relates to attachments issued by and returnable before justices, and not to those returnable to courts. Brown v. Massey, 3 S. 226. 19. The statute allowing amendments in proceedings before justices, does not authorize a change in the names of parties.

Frienson & Shortridge v. Blakely, 3 S. 267. 20. The authority conferred by statute on judges of the county courts, to grant writs of certiorari and supersedeas, is given only for the purpose of removing a cause from the justice's jurisdiction, that the party complaining may have a trial de novo. Boyd v. Woodfire, 3 S. 357.

21. And such authority to supersede executions from their own courts, cannot be extended to supersede perpetually those issued by justices of the Ibid.

peace.

22. A retrospective act of the Legislature, which would take away the right of property or dissolve the obligation of a contract, would be unconstitutional and void.

Aldridge v. Tuscumbia, Courtland & Decatur R. R. Comp. 2 S. & P. 199.

23. But the Legislature may pass an act that in many respects would be retrospective and yet valid: such as an act changing a remedy after a cause of action has accrued-changing the jurisdiction of a court or a mode of securing testimony, &c. 1bid. 24. Semble the prohibition against the passage of ex post facto laws in the constitution of the United States, applies to criminal not civil cases.

Ibid. 25. The condemnation of private property to the uses and purposes of the Rail Road Company, under a charter granted by the Legislature, which allows to the party whose property is condemned, a just compensation to be ascertained by a jury, is clearly within the power of the legislature.

1bid.

26. Where a statute adopts a common law offence, all the common law rerequirements, in defining the offence, should be followed in the indictment. State v. Absence, 4 P. 397. 27. When a statute describes an act as a crime or misdemeanor of particular grade, the indictment need not state the legal conclusion, that such act amounts to such crime or misdemeanor. Ibid.

28. Thus, in an indictment for mayhem, it is not essential to charge the offence to have been committed feloniously. Ibid. 29. Indictments framed on statutes, must conform strictly to the words of the enactment. State v. Brown, 4 P.410.

30. Thus, an indictment under the statute of this State, for stealing slaves, omitting an allegation, that they were stolen out of, or from the possession of the master or overseer-held, bad.

Ibid.

31. To construe a statute according to its equity, is to give an effect to it according to the intention of the law-makers as indicated by its terms and purposes. Blakeney v. Blakeney, 6 P. 109.

See Admiralty-Attachments-Practice-Circuit Court-Costs-County Court-Dower-Election-Executor and Administrator-Justices Construction of-Registration-Revenue-Trespass and Ejectment Trustees University-Usury.

SUPREME COURT.

I. OF THE JURISDICTION AND POWErs of the supreme court. II. PRACTICE IN THE SUPREME COURT.

I. Of the Jurisdiction and Powers of the Supreme Court.

1. The act of 1819, which authorizes an original motion against tax-collector, to be made in the supreme court, is repugnant to the constitution of the State, and void. State v. Flinn, A. R. 9.

ques

2. The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction in chancery. Adm'r. Lewis v. Lewis, A. R. 35. 3. The act of 1820, authorizing the reference of criminal cases of tions of law "novel and difficult," does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the court, but only provides an additional mode of bringing causes of this nature, after final judgment into this court.

Phleming v. State, A. R. 42,

4. Has no jurisdiction of points referred, and novel and difficult, until afState v. Sampson & Reed, A. R. 266.

ter final judgment.
5. Has original jurisdiction of mandumus and quo warranto.

Mead v. Dun, A. R. 46. Murry v. Ayres, A. R. 323.) 6. On judgment by nil dicit for an amount less than what by the writing appears to be due, the court will on writ of error by plaintiff, correct the judgment at his cost. Mason v. Smith, 1 S. 275.

7. Will not reverse the decisions of inferior courts upon the subject of new trials. Lecatt v. Stewart, 2 S. 474. 8. Will not entertain a motion for an attachment for the breach of an injunction perpetuated here, on an appeal from an inferior court; in such case redress must be had from the tribunal from whence removed.

Gates v. McDaniel, 4 S. & P. 69.

9. The supreme court has authority to issue writs of injunction.

Davis by Guardian v. Tuscumbia R. R. Co. 4 S. & P. 421. 10. The supreme court has no authority upon the relation of the attorney general in behalf of the State, to inquire into the constitutionality of an appointment by the legislative department, of a judicial officer.

State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. Paul, 5 S. & P. 40. 11. The supreme court has no power to control the discretion of an in

ferior court in regulating pleadings, allowing amendments, and filing additional pleas; but this must be understood to be confined to such pleas as are consistent with each other, and with the regular order of pleading.

Tate, Guardian v. Gilbert, 2 P. 386. 12. When an appeal is taken from a decree in chancery, and it appears that neither of the parties litigating the cause are entitled to the subject of the decree, but a third person, not a party to the appeal, this court cannot reverse in favor of the latter. Morgan, ex'r. v. Crabbe, 3 P. 470. 13. This court h s no authority to amend the decrees or judgments of an inferior court, they being such as should have been rendered by authorizing their immediate execution. Sadler et al. v. Houston & Gillespie, 4 P. 208. 14. Or to consider instructions made by an inferior court, in relation to a deed which is not set out in the record, nor its provisions stated. Bank State v. Dade, ex rel. 4 P. 252.

II. Practice in the Supreme Court.

15. It is not necessary that prisoner should be present at his trial, in supreme court. Phleming v. State, A. R. 42. 16. Refusal to grant new trial upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to evidence, not subject to be reversed in this court.

Ibid.

17. If plaintiff in error does not appear when case is called, judgment will be affirmed. Hunter v. Longmin, A. R. 99. 18. When the evidence offered has no tendency to defeat a recovery, and was wholly inadmissible, the appellate court will not reverse a judgment upon the ground that the judge's charge was not wholly correct.

may ar

Scott v. Hancock, 3 S. & P. 44. 19. To authorize a reversal of a case there must be a concurrence of a majority of the court in the conclusion on some point, although they rive at such conclusion by different reasons; but where each of the judges was of the opinion that there was error, but no two of them agreed on the same point, the judgment was not reversed.

Cook v. Drew, 3 S. & P. 392. 20. This court, when a case is brought a second time before it, will not question the correctness of the law under which it may have been first decided. Meredith v. Naish, 4 S. & P. 54. Williamson & Nicholson, 1 P. 313. ( 21. When the result of a decision below is correct, this court will not reverse it because the inferior court has assigned improper grounds for its determination. Dawson v. Turner, 5 S. & P. 195.

Gee v.

22. When matters in controversy have been referred to commissioners by a chancellor, and on an appeal it appears that exception to any special matter has not been taken before the commissioners, this will not bar the right to the exception in this court. Colgin v. Cummins, 1 P. 148.

23. The supreme court has no jurisdiction of a case brought up by a writ of error for reversing an order of the circuit court exercising chancery jurisdiction dissolving an injunction; the proper remedy under the statute being by appeal. The statute is an enabling one, and a party who desires to avail himself of it, must pursue the directions of it.*

Russell, et al. v. Pierce, 7 P. 276.

*This statute was passed in 1836, previous to which no revision in such case was allowed.

24. Even after argument on errors assigned, the court will suggest that & second certiorari will bring up a sufficient transcript, and award it if prayed for, and the court will amend a clerical error at the cost of the parties, without damages. Brown & Parsons v. Torver, A. R. 570. 25. Copy of bond inscribed in the transcript without oyer is no part of the record. Mullary v. Caskaden, A. R. 21.

26. After joinder in error, additional assignment not permitted, unless obvious justice requires it. Myrick v. Chamblain, et al. A. R. 357. 27. Error amended in court below after writ of error brought, judgment affirmed at costs of defendant in error.

Brown & Parsons v. Torver, A. R. 370. 28. Motion for judgment on certificate, two writs of error appear to have issued on the same judgment, the transcript filed and cause pending on the first-motion denied. Brahan et al. v. Johnson, A. R. 382.

29. Certificate on judgment produced-plaintiff in error shows transcript in same cause in which there is no entry of judgment—judgment on the certificate. Kennedy v. Harris, A. R. 135. 30. Indorsement of writ will not be looked to to sustain errors.

Flant et al. v. Malone, A. R. 92.

Lee v. Adkins, A. R. 187.
Mayfield v. Allen, A. R. 274.

Peters v. Johnson et al. A. R. 100.

31. But will be looked to to sustain judgment.

Davis v. Chester, A. R. 385.

32. Bill of exceptions must be taken and sealed during the trial.

Powers v. Wright, A. R. 66.

33. And the points must arise on the evidence, and be applicable to the issue.

Wilson v. Jackson, A. R. 399.
Campbell v. Green, A. R. 30.

34. Paper therein referred to and not copied at time of scaling, must be so described and identified by marks, &c., that another paper cannot be copied Loony v. Bush, A. R. 413.

in lieu of it.

35. Continuance, or matter from which it is to be inferred, should appear

in the record.

Kennon v. Bell, A. R. 98.

Kennedy v. Pickering, adm'r. A. R. 137.
Mendenhall v. Smith, A. R. 380,

Clemens v. Judson & Banks, A. R. 395.
McRory v. Vinzant, A. R, 401.

36. Assignment of mere technical errors made before motion for affirmance, but not within the three first days-judgment affirmed on motion. McDonald v. Elliot, 1 S. 219.

37. With the transcript of the proceedings at law, the clerk certifies a copy of a release of errors as written on a bill in chancery filed in the same court, for the purpose of obtaining an injunction; the release is part of the record, and judgment must be affirmed. Thompson v. Ayres, 1 S. 171.

38. Judgment by default, the transcript contains a bail bond but no writ. Judgment sustained. Guy v. Winston, 1 S. 149. 39. Exceptions not certified to by the presiding judge, or noted in writing at the time of trial, cannot be considered as on the record. Tombecbee Bank v. Malone & Co. 1 S. 269. 40. No error will be considered which is not specially assigned. Stebbins v. Fitch, 1 S. 180.

41. The record contained three pleas, which were demurred to, but no disposition of them appeared, there was a trial on the merits, and motion in

arrest of judgment. Held, that the motion in arrest, was an abandonment of the pleas. Davis v. Dickson, 2 S. 370. 42. There being in the record a plea and demurrer thereto undisposed of, the cause must be remanded, and final judgment cannot be rendered in the supreme court. Miller v. Pennington, 2 S. 399.

43. By an agreement it was consented that the pleadings should be made up after trial, and a declaration appeared in the record which was insufficient. The court held, that the agreement cured all defects in the pleadings, and stood in lieu of the proper issue.

McGrew v. Adams & Elliot, 2 S. 502.

44. A judgment will be presumed to be in full force, though a writ of error be sued out, when the record shows no disposition of the writ. Gee, adm. v. Nicholson, 2 S. 512.

45. To two writs of error one record was returned, containing two judgments; the record being applicable to neither, the writ should be dismissed. Smith v. Hearne, 2 S. 169.

46. The clerk of the court below cannot, after a party to a judgment is dead, issue a writ of error against the representatives of the deceased. Seawall v. Bates' adm'rs. 2 S. 462. 47. It seems that in such case application must be made to this court for a sci. fa. to the representatives, or certiorari on proof of the death of the opposite party.

1bid.

48. It will not be judged as a variance between a scire facius and a record --that the record does not show the amount of costs recovered as averred in the scire facias. The allegation on the scire facias may be proved at the time of trial by the fee bill.

Sanders & Fenwick v. Reeves, 3 S. 109.

49. When the court below has erred, but the record shows that on another ground the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, the court will not reverse a judgment below obtained by defendant.

Johnson adm'r. v. Wren, 3 S. 172. 50. Nor can appellee claim a dismissal of the writ of error, after appearance for writ of citation. Naylor v. Phillips, 3 S. 210. 51. A variance in the name of plaintiff, as stated in the appellate court, from that stated in the judgment, warrant or summons, apparent of record by oyer or otherwise, is fatal on demurrer.

Moffet & Singleton v. Woolridge, 3 S. 322. 52. The appellee having prevented the writ of error from being properly prosecuted-his motion for affirmance upon certificate will be denied, and the appellant allowed to dismiss his writ, so as to prosecute anothMitchell v. Russell, 3 S. 53.

er.

53. Judgment on affirmance may be rendered on certificate in cases of appeal as well as of writs of error. Adams v. Adams, 3 S. 57.

54. It is only plaintiff who can file the record in this court; and if he omits to do So, defendant may have judgment affirmed on certificate. Thacker v. Myrick, 3 S. 184.

55. The certificate authenticating the record is sufficient for this purpose,

but he cannot be allowed the costs of the record.

1bid.

56. Where a defendant dies after judgment; to prosecute a writ of error against his representatives, the proper course is to apply to this court for a certiorari to bring up the record, and for a scire facias against his administrators, to make them defendants. Seawall v. Bates' adm'rs. 3 S. 199.

« السابقةمتابعة »