Though a particeps criminis, called as
a witness for the commonwealth
on the trial of his accomplice,
voluntarily give evidence, and
fully, candidly and impartially
disclose all the circumstances at-
tending the transaction, as well
those which involve his own guilt
as those which involve the guilt
of others, he will yet have no right
to a pardon for his own guilt, and
therefore no right to demand a
continuance of his cause until he
can have an opportunity to apply
to the executive for such pardon.
Commonwealth v. Dabney, 754
What plea is insufficient.
In debt on a judgment, the defend-
ant pleads, that by an agreement
in writing between the parties the
judgment was discharged and sat-
isfied by a new contract, for the
payment of a sum in cash, which
was then paid, and for the pay-
ment of the balance by deferred
instalments, whereby the said
judgment was remitted and re-
leased, and accord and satisfaction
thereof made. The plaintiff de-
murred to this plea, and the de-
murrer was sustained. Herring-
ton v. Harkin's adm'rs,
624
1. Construction of clause excepting ac-
counts between merchant and
merchant out of the statute of
limitations. See Merchants' Ac-
counts No. 1, 2, and Coalter v. Coal-
ter,
85
2. Limitation of suit by one partner
against another for account. See
Partnership No. 6, 7, and S. C. 85
3. Account between vendor and ven-
dee, where specific execution is
refused. See Specific Execution No.
1, and Bryan v. Lofftus's adm'rs, 13
Right of prisoner for treason or fe-
lony to discharge if not tried at
or before third term after exami-
nation. See Criminal Jurisdiction
and Proceedings No. 11, and Green
v. Commonwealth,
791
1. Amendment of decree in Court of
Appeals, and affirmance there-
upon. See Appellate Jurisdiction
No. 12, and Blessing's adm'rs v.
Beatty,
304
2. Affirmance of judgment for an
amercement or fine. See Fine,
and Abrahams v. Commonwealth,
711, 712
mandable as of right. See Roads,
No. 2, and Hill v. Salem Turnpike
Co.,
278
2. What appeal must be dismissed for
insufficiency of amount in contro-
versy. See Lunacy, and Campbells
v. Bowen's adm'rs &c.,
255
3. What appeal by corporation will not
abate by expiration of charter.
See Corporation, No. 2, and Bank of
Alexandria v. Patton &c.,
528
4. What is an interlocutory decree.
See Decree, No. 1, 2, 3, and Cocke's
adm'r v. Gilpin,
649 II. What may be reviewed by Appellate
Court.
See Husband and Wife No. 1, and
Spencer v. Ford,
684, 5
What irregularities in decree may
be amended in Appellate Court,
and decree thereupon affirmed.
See Appellate Jurisdiction No. 12,
and Blessing's adm`rs v. Beatty, 304
Affirmance of judgment for
amercement. See Fine, and Abra-
hams v. Commonwealth,
711, 12
No rule is better settled than that
an answer of an infant by guar-
dian ad litem cannot be read
against him at all, for any pur-
pose. Per Baldwin, J.
Alexandria v. Patton, &c.,
That a surety for administration will
5. What is no waiver of exception to
admission of plea. See Waiver,
No. 1, and Campbell's adm'x v.
Montgomery,
413
6. Where a court refuses to give an
instruction asked, and its opinion
is excepted to, if the bill of ex-
ceptions does not state that evi-
dence was offered tending to prove
the case supposed by the instruc-
tion, and the court has simply de-
clined to give the instruction, such
refusal may perhaps be justified,
on the ground that the case was
merely hypothetical, and the in-
struction asked on an abstract
question. But if the court not
only declines to give the instruc-
tion asked, but proceeds to give
another in lieu thereof, the infer-
ence is a reasonable one, that
there was evidence tending to
prove the case supposed, and the
Appellate Court will not only en-
quire whether the law is correctly
expounded in the instruction giv-
en, but will also enquire whether
it is correctly stated in the in-
struction asked. Chapman &c. v.
Wilson & Co.,
284
not be subrogated to creditor's 7. In a suit by one partner against his
remedy against surety in appeal
bond given by administrator, see
Principal and Surety, No. 4, and
Brown v. Glascock's adm'r,
1. What appeal is regularly before the court.
1. From what order of County Court
respecting road no appeal is de-
co-partner, for a settlement of the
partnership accounts, and for a
moiety of a tract of land pur-
chased by the defendant in his
own name, and paid for out of the
partnership funds, the land hav-
ing been sold under an interlo-
cutory decree, and purchased
by the defendant at a sacrifice;
and then, after process of Seire
facias at the instance of the defen-
dant to revive in the name of the
plaintiff's administrator and heirs,
and after taking an account of the
administration, a final decree be-
ing rendered against the adminis- 11.
trator personally, for so much of
the money decreed to the defend-
ant as was not satisfied by the sale
of the land; and upon an appeal
by the administrator, the court
being of opinion that the inter- IV.
locutory decree was for too large
an amount, and therefore errone-
ous: HELD, 1. That the sale of 12.
the land under the interlocutory
decree, which had never been con-
firmed, ought to be set aside on
the appeal of the administrator,
although the heirs (who were in-
fants) had not joined in the ap-
peal. 2. That the revival of the
suit as to the administrator, if
regularly made, could only au-
thorize a decree against him de
bonis testatoris, and not a decree
against him personally; for, if
sought to be charged on the
ground that he had wasted or
failed to account for, or had in
his hands, assets of the testator,
he ought to have an opportunity
of being heard on that subject, in
answer to a bill with proper aver-
ments. 3. That upon the filing
of such a bill, a sale of the land
ought to be suspended, until the
result of a settlement of the ad-
ministration accounts should shew
whether that property could not
be relieved by the application of
the personal assets to any balance
in favour of the defendant.
Cocke's adm'r v. Gilpin,
III. What objection will not avail in Appel-
late Court.
8. What objection for misjoinder of
plaintiffs will not avail in Appel-
late Court. See Will No. 2, and
Malone's adm'r & al. v. Hobbs & al.,
366
9. The decision in White v. Toncray,
9 Leigh 347, that where pleas are
rejected an Appellate Court will
take it to have been rightly done
unless the defendant has excepted,
approved and acted on. Harring-
ton v. Harkins's adm'rs,
624
10. When objection that jury trial was
not awarded in criminal cause is
not available in Appellate Court.
See Slaves and Free Negroes, No. 10,
and Abrahams v. Commonwealth,
712
Affirmance of judgment for a fine,
with damages according to law, (but
giving no specific damages) will
not be reversed. See Fine, and
S. C.,
712-13
Amendment of decree, and affirmance
thereupon.
In the court below, there having
been a clerical misprison in de-
creeing jointly against two defen-
dants as administrators of a dece-
dent, when the pleadings indicated
that one of them was sole admin-
istrator, and the decree for costs
having through oversight been
entered against him, as well as
against certain heirs of the de-
ceased, de bonis propriis, the Ap-
pellate Court amended the decree
in these particulars. The Appel-
late Court being farther of opin-
ion that what was declared in the
decree would, by necessary im-
plication, relieve the heirs from
responsibility for certain land, but
that it would have been more re-
gular to direct a release of that
land, decreed such release accor-
dingly. And the decree, being
thus amended, was thereupon af-
firmed. Blessing's adm'rs v. Beatty,
304
V. Reversal for defect in declaration.
There being a demurrer to a decla-
ration, and an issue in fact, a ver-
dict is found for the plaintiff, and
it does not appear that any judg
ment was given on the demurrer,
otherwise than by implication
from the fact that final judgment
was given for the plaintiff after
the verdict. The Court of Ap-
peals is of opinion that the demur-
rer ought to have been sustained.
HELD, the judgment must be re-
versed, the verdict set aside, and
the cause remanded to the Circuit
Court, that it may proceed to
judgment on the demurrer, unless
the plaintiff shall, on leave ob-
tained in that court, amend his
declaration; and if the declaration
be amended, for such further pro-
14. A decree being reversed in conse-
quence of an error committed
against one of the appellees, costs
decreed to be paid by the appel-
lant to the appellees, as the par-
ties substantially prevailing.
Ashby v. Smith & ux.,
15. The Court of Appeals reversing a
decree, and there being three ap-
pellees, one of whom gets by the
decision here what was sought by
his bill and denied by the court
below, and another of whom pre-
vails here to the same extent that
he prevailed in the court below,
DECREED that the third appellee
pay to the appellant his costs.
Breckenridge v. Auld, &c.,
1. Construction of the eleventh section
of the act of congress of March
16, 1802, fixing the military peace
establishment of the United States.
United States v. Cottingham, 649
2. A person of full age voluntarily en-
listing in the army of the United
States is not entitled to be dis-
charged from the service upon
the ground of his being an alien.
S. C.
649
1. No warrant is necessary for appre-
hending a slave going at large or
hiring himself out contrary to law.
Abrahams v. Commonwealth, 712
2. See Commitment, and Young v. Com-
nonwealth,
805
Case of an information against a jus-
tice of the peace, an informer,
and a constable, for assaulting
and imprisoning a party, under
colour of a warrant of arrest for
perjury, issued against him by the
justice on the oath of the informer,
and executed by the constable;
wherein it was held by the Gene-
ral Court, upon the evidence, that
1. Who may assign prison bounds bond.
See Prison Bounds Bond No. 3, 4,
and Vanmeter & al. v. Giles, Gover-
nor,
347
II. Rights of assignees of purchase
2. A bond for purchase money of land,
executed by the vendee to one of
the vendors, being assigned by
the obligee to another of the ven-
dors and a third person, the ven-
dee brings a suit in equity against
the vendors and assignees, and ob-
tains relief against the payment of
the bond; but held that in the
condition of the cause there is
nothing to justify a decree over
in favour of the assignees.
ford & al. v. M'Daniel,
3. The vendee of land having paid a
part of the purchase money to the
assignee of his bond for the same,
it turns out that the quantity of
the land is deficient, and that the
money already paid to the assig-
nee is more than the vendee was
bound to pay. HELD, he has no
equity to recover back the excess
from the assignee. S. C. 473
4. The grantee in a deed for land,
which is absolute on its face, but
in truth a mortgage, having sold
the land, and taken from the pur-
chaser bonds for the purchase
money, and a deed of trust to se-
cure the same, and having then
transferred the bonds to one who
claims to be the assignee thereof
for valuable consideration, but ap-
pears to have taken the assign-
ment under circumstances calcu-
lated to throw strong suspicion
|