the death of the testator or intestate, and are to be
paid according to the priority of lien as the same ex-
isted at that time. King vs. Morris et al.......................... 63
5. Under the former rulings of this Court, a decision of
the Court below that the homestead is subject to the
payment of a judgment obtained prior to the passage
of the Homestead Law, which does not fall within
one of the exceptions mentioned in said Act, as con-
strued by this Court, is erroneous. Pulliam et al. vs.
Sewell et al...........
6. G., a stone and marble cutter, made and delivered to
B. & Brother a "marble counter-top," and afterwards
B. & Brother sold the same to R. & Company, who,
so far as the record shows, purchased it without notice
of the lien of G., the stone and marble cutter, for his
labor and expenses due therefore: Held, that the lien
of the stone and marble cutter, under the provisions
of the Code, can be enforced for the work done, and
materials furnished, as against the parties to whom
the "marble counter-top" was sold and delivered, and
those claiming under them with notice of the lien; but
that the stone and marble cutter's lien cannot be en-
forced against third persons, who were bona fide pur-
chasers of the "marble counter-top" without notice of
the stone and marble cutter's lien thereon. Rose &
Co. vs. Gray........
7. When executions were issued in favor of the officers
and employees of a steamboat, for debts due to them,
against the persons owing such debts, and also against
the boat, after a demand on the owners, or their agent,
for payment, and a refusal to pay, as provided by the
1968 and 1969th sections of the Code; which execu-
tions were levied on the boat and sold by the sheriff:
Held, that the purchasers of the boat at such sheriff's
sale acquired a good title thereto, as against the own-
ers of the boat and were not liable to be garnisheed
for the value of the boat so purchased, at the suit of
an attachment creditor, for a debt due by one of the
owners of the boat, prior to such sale.
Held, further, that the executions, under which the boat
was sold, having been issued against the persons own-
ing the boat, as well as against the boat, after demand
and refusal to pay the debt, and not against the boat
alone, that it was not such a proceeding to enforce a
maritime lien against the boat, as would give to the
District Courts of the United States exclusive jurisdic-
tion, under the Act of Congress of 1789. Merritt,
Dunham & Taft vs. Peabody et al.........
8. Sections 1947 and 1948 of our Code regulating the
rights of liens existing by operation of law against
unrecorded or defectively recorded mortgages, does
not change the rule in equity as to the mistakes in
the instruments themselves. Such mistakes are still
relievable except as against bona fide purchasers with-
out notice. Burke et al. vs. Anderson...
LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS, ETC.
1. A judgment foreclosing a mortgage, is not within the
Acts providing for the dormancy of judgments. Hor-
ton vs. Clark, executor,......
2. The Act of March 6th, 1856, providing that judg-
ments shall be presumed paid off and satisfied, upon
which no execution shall issue in seven years from the
date of the judgment, or, if an execution has issued,
if no entry be made on the same, within seven years,
does not render said judgment dormant, but satisfied,
and was suspended by the various Acts from 1860 to
1865, suspending the statutes of limitations. Ibid.
See Bill of Exceptions, 9.
1. A petition was filed in the Superior Court to estab-
lish a copy of a lost note, and the defendant on the
trial of the issue formed thereon between the parties,
offered evidence to prove that the original note was
given for a slave, which was objected to, but admitted
by the Court, and the Court charged the jury, " that
if you should determine from the evidence that the
original note was given for a slave, say so by your
verdict, and stop right there," and the jury returned
a verdict that the note was given for a negro; where-
upon, the Court granted an order that the case be dis-
missed at plaintiff's cost. A motion was made for a
new trial, which was overruled: Held, that the Court
below erred in holding and deciding that because the
original note was given for a slave, the petitioner
could not establish a copy thereof, in lieu of the lost
original; the right of the petitioner to establish a copy
of his lost note, as provided by law, is one thing; his
right to enforce it after it is established, in the Courts
of this State, is another and different question. Ven-
able vs. Born...
2. If a record reach this Court, and be lost before the
case is entered upon the docket, a copy may be estab-
lished here instanter, and the case will be docketed, as
if the record had not been lost. (R.) Doyal vs. Max-
well and wife............
.... 546
3. The existence, genuineness and contents of a deed
shown to be lost or destroyed, may be proven by a
certified copy of the record of it, if it has been prop-
erly and legally probated for record. Eady vs. Shivey 681
See Jurisdiction of the Superior Court, 1.
See, Bill of Exceptions, 4.
MANUMISSION. See Wills, 1.
D. sold and delivered a piano-forte to F., a married
woman, and took her note for the price thereof, and
afterwards filed his bill on the equity side of the Court
for a re-delivery of the piano to him, or payment of
its value, on the ground that the note given therefor
was void: Held, that a general demurrer to the bill
for want of equity was properly sustained by the Court
below. Davis vs. Moorefield et. al.,........
See Baxter vs. Abercrombie......
An action of trover, for the recovery of a horse, was
pending in the Superior Court, and in March, 1868,
a military order was issued by General Meade, order-
ing that the suit should be dismissed by the Court,
but the order was not produced in Court, though the
sheriff swore that he had received an order in sub-
stance as above stated. There had been two terms of
the Court held since the order was issued; at the first
term thereafter the defendant was in Court, and con-
tinued the case on account of the sickness of one of
his counsel, having in his possession an official copy
of the military order, at that term of the Court.
the next term of the Court the case was continued by
the defendant on account of his own sickness, at which
term one of his counsel had the order in his posses-
sion; but at neither term was there any motion made
to dismiss the case, nor was the order brought to the
attention of the Court. It was also shown to the
Court that both parties had subpoenaed witnesses, and
prepared the case for trial at the present term of the
Court, when, on motion, the presiding Judge dismissed
the case: Held, that inasmuch as the defendant fail-
ed to produce his military order to the Court, and
move a dismissal of the case until after the restoration
of civil authority in the State, but proceeded to con-
tinue the case from term to term, and put the plain-
tiff to the expense and trouble of preparing the same
for trial, it was error in the Court below to dismiss
the plaintiff's case at the last term of the Court at the
plaintiff's cost, on motion of the defendant, under the
military order issued in 1868. Edwards vs. Daly.... 160
See Constitutional Law, 10.
MINOR CHILDREN.
See Administrators and Executors, 1, 2.
See Administrators and Executors, 1 to 4.
See Arbitration, 4.
See Equity, 6.
See Evidence, 2.
See Railroads and R. R. Companies, 8.
1. A bill was filed by R., a person of color, against the
administrator of R., a person of color, alleging that
the complainant was the illegitimate son of the intes-
tate, who, during his lifetime, and at the time of his
death, always recognized, owned and treated the com-
plainant as his son and child. The intestate died
about the 11th day of July, 1866. The complainant
claims one-half of the intestate's estate, as his heir-at-
law, under the 3d section of the Act of 9th March,
1866: Held, that as the intestate died after the pas-
sage of the Act of 9th March, 1866, which declared
"every colored child heretofore born, to be the legiti-
mate child of his mother, and also of his colored
father, if acknowledged by such father," and before the
passage of the Act of 12th December, 1866, that the
complainant is entitled to inherit his share of the in-
testate's estate as the legitimate child of his deceased
father. White vs. Ross......
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
1. There is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain
the verdict of the jury. Huson vs. Roberts..............
2. When the verdict is strongly and decidedly against
the weight of the evidence, and no rule of law has been
violated, and there is no abuse of his discretion by the
presiding Judge, this Court will not reverse the judg
ment of the Court below, setting aside the verdict and
granting a new trial. Sims vs. So. Express Co....... 91
3. When the evidence is in conflict, but there is ample
evidence to support the verdict, and no rule of law
has been violated in the Court below, this Court will
not interfere. Holland et al. vs. Brooks.....
|