said Court a mandamus nisi directed to such Judge,
and, inasmuch as the Court, at the time of the adop
tion of the Code, held its terms at several different
times and places in the State, the application for
mandamus might have been made at any time during
the next term of the Court, and as the terms of the
Court have since been located at one place, and as the
present term of the Court is the next term held, since
the bill of exceptions was tendered to the Judge, and
no time specified either in the Code, or by the rules
of this Court, within what time during the term of the
Court, the mandamus shall be applied for, the plain-
tiff in error is within the provisions of the Code, when
he applies for a mandamus at any time during the
term, as he has done in this case. Lane et al. vs.
Robenson...
5. Held further, that inasmuch as it is shown to this
Court, during the term, by the oath of the attorney
for the plaintiff in error, that the bill of exceptions
was tendered to the Judge within the thirty days
from the date of his decision at Chambers, and that
it is not his fault that the same was not properly
signed and certified, he is entitled to the manda-
mus prayed for in his petition, and that the case be
reinstated on the docket of this Court, and that the
order dismissing the same be rescinded and set aside,
in order that the plaintiff in error may not lose any
of his rights in the case, by reason of the failure of the
Judge to certify his bill of exceptions, as required by
law. Ibid.
A writ of error does not lie to an ex parte order for
injunction granted in Chambers; there must first be
a hearing upon a motion to vacate or modify the in-
junction. (R.) Camfield et al. vs. Shaw........ .... 492
The bill of exceptions not having been served, the
writ of error was dismissed. (R.) Howell vs. Green. 510
The bill of exceptions was not certified and sent up
to this Court in accordance with law and rules of
Court, and was, therefore, dismissed. (R.) Jones vs.
If the bill of exceptions be not served upon defend-
ant in error, or his counsel, within the time required
by law, the writ of error will be dismissed. (R.)
Watson et al. vs. Johnson et al...........
If a brief of the oral and a copy of the written tes-
imony in the cause, be not incorporated in the bill
of exceptions, or be not attached to the bill of excep-
tions, as an exhibit, when it is presented to the Judge
for his certificate, and identified as true by the signa-
ture of the Judge thereupon, the writ of error will be
dismissed. Though the brief of evidence come here
certified by the Clerk as part of the record, it is no
part of the record. (R.) Doyal vs. Maxwell & wife.. 546
11. The action of the Court below upon a collateral is-
sue, is not reviewable by writ of error while the cause
is pending below. Such a case being brought up, the
writ of error was dismissed without prejudice to plain-
tiff's right to file a bill of exceptions pendente lite un-
der section 4191, Revised Code. (R.) Doe ex dem.
Herrin vs Grannis, adm'r.......
12. It is the duty of the plaintiff in error to bring up
the whole record of his case to this Court, and when
there was a motion to set aside a judgment on the
ground that the consideration of the debt sued on,
was a horse to be used in the Confederate service, and
the Court below, on proof, granted the motion, and
the plaintiff in the judgment excepted, but failed to
bring up any record of the judgment, or even to show
its date: Held, that in favor of the decision of the
Court below, this Court will presume, either that the
judgment was obtained during the war, when such a
plea would not have been allowed, or if since the war,
on an erroneous ruling of the Court against the plea.
Easley vs. Camp......
13. Deficiencies in the record may be supplied by the
recitals in the bill of exceptions. (R.) Williamson
vs. Wardlaw.......
14. If the certificate as to the bill of exceptions be upon
the record and not on the bill of exceptions, the writ
of error will not be dismissed, if they came to this
Court in one envelope. (R.) Ibid.
15. If several cases are stated exactly alike and the
statement of one is copied into the bill of exceptions,
it is sufficient to state how many other cases there
were, and that the entries in them were the same as
in the one copied. (R.) Ibid.
pages 95, 121, 128, 152, 197, 387, 421, 704.
See Damages, 6.
See Equity, 6, 7.
See Corporations, 4.
BOND FOR TITLES-See Ejectment, 1.
BRIEF OF EVIDENCE-See New Trial, 10.
BURDEN OF PROOF-See Practice, 3.
BY-LAWS-See Corporations, 1.
CARRIERS-See Common-Carriers.
(Former decisions of this Court cited in this volume. The pages show
Bailey vs. Strohecker.
Battle vs. Shivers.......
Bivins vs. Bivins...
Blalock vs. Phillips.......
Brown & Sharp vs. Loyless....
Cannon vs. Wallace, Sup't......
Clements vs. Henderson....
Cleland et al., vs. Waters et al. 30th " 66
Collins vs. The Central Bank et al.........1st
Costly vs. The State.............
Cutts & Johnson vs. Hardee..........
Sims vs. The Southern Express Co........38th "
Smith vs. Bryan................
Smith et al., vs. Inferior Court of Ran- 4th
dolph Co.......
Winter vs. Muscogee R. R. Co.......... ..11th
Worrell vs. Wright....
......... ......... ......... ......... ............ .............. 25th
Young vs. Harris...
CENTRAL RAILROAD AND BANKING COMPANY.
1. A confession of judgment for the sum of $..
..., with
interest and costs of suit, is not sufficient to sustain a
judgment, signed up for a specified sum as principal,
with interest, etc., as the shape of the confession
shows that the parties had not agreed upon the
amount with which the blank was to be filled, or had,
for some other reason, neglected to fill it; such judg-
ment takes no lien on the property of the defendants,
and an order of Court, amending the confession by
filling the blank with the sum for which the judg-
ment had been signed, will not create a lien on prop-
erty purchased from the defendants, bona fide, prior
to the date of such order. The record in such case
was only notice of what it contained, and was not
notice that there was any legal judgment against the
defendants or any lien upon their property. Lee vs.
Yates.....
2. When there were three credits on the note sued on,
one of which was uncertain and doubtful as to the
amount and date thereof, and the jury found a verdict
for the plaintiffs for principal, interest and costs:
Held, that the verdict was not sufficiently certain, ac-
cording to the facts in this case, to authorize a judg-
ment to be entered thereon for any definite sum.
Jackson vs Jackson.......
3. Where the defendant in an attachment claimed
$980 88, and the bond and declaration followed the
attachment, as to the amount, and the proof is such as
to justify a verdict for that amount: Field, that a
verdict of the jury for the plaintiff for $9.50 88 will
be taken (nothing otherwise appearing) to be a ver-
dict for $980 88, the amount sworn to and claimed
by the plaintiff. Heinkin & Palmore vs. Barbery. .... 249
4. It is the duty of the plaintiff in error to bring up the
whole record of his case to this Court, and when there
was a motion to set aside a judgment on the ground
that the consideration of the debt sued on was a
horse, to be used in the Confederate service, and the
Court below, on proof, granted the motion, and the
plaintiff in the judgment excepted, but failed to bring
up any record of the judgment, or even to show its
date: Held, that in favor of the decision of the Court
below, this Court will presume either that the judg-
ment was obtained during the war, when such a plea
would not have been allowed, or, if since the war, on
an erroneous ruling of the Court against the plea.
Easly vs. Camp.
See Charge of the Court, 1, 3, 5.
See Bill of Exceptions, 14.
1. If either party is not satisfied with the answer of the
Justice of the Peace to a certiorari, all the exceptions.
must be taken, or the traverse filed, before the case is
called in its order for a hearing; and if such excep-
tions are not taken, or traverse filed, and the case is
heard in the Superior Court upon the answer, and
|