extend to amounts under $100, and the matters in dis-
pute were referred to an arbitrator, and upon the re-
turn of the award, which was in favor of the plaintiff,
for $68 14, besides interest, a motion was made to dis-
miss the case for want of jurisdiction, as the plaintiff,
by his own admission, only claimed $81 96, it was
proper in the Court to sustain the motion. Clements
3. The records of the Court of Ordinary are amendable
so as to make them speak the truth, upon the proper
steps being taken for that purpose. The fact that the
Court had no jurisdiction to grant the order, which
it is proposed to amend, cannot affect the motion to
amend. If the jurisdiction did not exist, parties whose
interests may be affected by the judgment can take
advantage of the want of jurisdiction as well after as
before the amendment, whenever and wherever it in-
terferes with their rights. Thompson et al. vs. Kim-
brel et al............
529
4. Upon a motion to amend the records of the Court of
Ordinary, the only issue before the Court is whether
the amendment proposed will make the record speak
the truth. Whether the original order was legally
passed or not is irrelevant and impertinent to the
issue. Nor can such order, if illegal, be set aside in
this proceeding. The case is not altered where the
motion is to rescind an order allowing the amend-
ment. Ibid.
5. Where an executor is sued as such, in the county of
his residence, and, pending the suit, dies, and admin-
istration de bonis non is granted upon the estate of his
testator, who lived and died in a different county, to
a citizen of the county of the testator's residence, the
suit against the executor does not abate, and a scire
facias issued to make the administrator de bonis non a
party to the suit, should not have been dismissed un-
der the facts stated. Walton vs. Gill, administrator;
Leonard et al. vs. Same; Weeks, executor, vs. Same... 600
1. Persons residing within the corporate limits are in-
competent jurors to try a suit against the city. John-
son vs. Mayor and City Council of Americus...
2. It is not error in the Court to refuse to strike from a
panel of twenty-four jurors a juror somewhat deaf, at
the instance of defendant, who himself struck the juror
in selecting a jury, and from which refusal no damage
is shown to have resulted to the defendant. Anderson
vs. Green, executor........
3. That there was a substitute for the juror selected by
the parties, who answered to the name of his princi-
pal, is no ground for new trial, it not appearing that
both substitute and principal were unknown to defen-
dant and his own counsel. Ibid.
4. That the name of one of the persons who tried the
case is not upon the jury list of the county, as made
up in conformity to the Act of the General Assembly
of February 15th, 1865, is an objection propter defec-
tum, and comes too late after verdict, though the party
objecting did not know the fact until after the trial.
40 Ga., 253. Ibid.
5. Jurors cannot be heard to impeach their verdict. Ibid.
1. A certiorari does not lie to correct the errors of a Jus-
tice of the Peace, in a judgment involving questions
of fact, when the amount of the judgment is over fifty
dollars. In such cases the remedy is by appeal, as
provided by the Constitution of 1868. Witkowski vs.
Skalowski.....
LAND. See Bond for Titles, 1, 2, 3, 4.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
1. The holder of a rent note, who is not the landlord,
cannot sue out a distress warrant for rent not due.
But when, in such a case, the affidavit made for the
distress warrant, describes the sum sued for as the rent
for a plantation owned by a third person, and the rent
note is payable to such third person or bearer, it does
not necessarily follow that the affiant is not the land-
lord. If such was the fact, it should be proved upon
an issue raised by counter-affidavit before the jury,
and the Court asked to charge the law applicable to
the case. Scott, trustee, vs. Berry.....
2. A married woman may sue out a distress warrant for
rent of her separate estate without joining her hus-
band or next friend. Urquhart vs. Urquhart............. 415
3. If an affidavit is made for a distress warrant, for rent
due in specifics, which does not aver the value of the
specifics, but upon the trial of the issue formed by the
counter-affidavit of defendant before a Justice of the
Peace, the value is proved and substantial justice has
been done, a certiorari should not be granted for want
of averment of the value of the specifics, or for allow-
ing such value to be proved in the absence of any
averment of value. Ibid.
4. Upon an issue formed to try whether any rent is due
on a distress warrant, questions asked a witness, as to
whether defendant ever owned the land, and as to how
he came in possession of it, may have been properly
ruled out. If the object was to show that the defend-
ant owned the land during the time for which the
rent is alleged to be due, the record should go further,
and show affirmatively that evidence tending to prove
that fact was ruled out. Ibid.
5. Where an execution was levied upon a lot of cotton
which was sold and the money arising from the sale
was claimed under a distress warrant for rent of the
land, on which the cotton was made, and the Court
adjudged the warrant irregular but refused to pass any
order disposing of the money until the landlord could
procure a new distress warrant, which he did before
the adjournment of the Court, and the money was
awarded to him:
Held, That this was not error. Harrison vs. Guill et al. 427
6. One who rents land and sub-lets it to a third person
stauds in the relation of landlord to the sub-tenant
and may have a distress warrant for his rent.
7. An owner of land, who contracts with a cropper that
he shall furnish to the cropper certain supplies with
which to make the crop, and that the share of the
cropper should not be moved from the place until
such advances are paid for, has a right to retain the
crop until said advances are paid, against the cropper
and all purchasers from him, or mortgagees, subse-
quent to the date of the contract. Appling vs. Odom
et al.......
LEAVE OF ABSENCE. See Attorney, 4, 6.
LEGACY. See Will, 4, 5, 9.
1. The laborer or mechanic who does the work and fur-
nishes the materials, is the person entitled to a lien
upon the property of his employer under the provis-
ions of the Act of 1869. Breed vs. Nagle........
2. The laborer or mechanic is not entitled to a lien on
any greater interest in the property than his employer
had at the time the work was done or the materials
furnished. Ibid.
3. Where the affidavit to foreclose a lien on a steam
saw mill, under the Act of 1868, alleges that depo-
nent was employed by Wall, the owner or lessee of a
steam saw mill situated in the county of DeKalb, as
a laborer in and about said mill, for which services
there is due deponent $51 50; that he has demanded
payment of said Wall, and he has failed and refused
to pay the same; that this prosecution is within one
year from the time the debt became due, as will more
fully appear by reference to the bill of particulars
hereto annexed; that deponent claims a lien upon said
mill for the amount so due him as aforesaid, it is in
substance a compliance with the provisions of the Act
under which plaintiff was proceeding. Wright vs.
Phillips........
4. Where the bill of particulars attached to the affidavit
consisted of a due bill for the amount claimed, made
by Wall, it was competent for plaintiff to show that
it was given for the services specified in the affidavit,
that Wall was in possession of the mill at the time of
the foreclosure of the lien, and of the levy of the exe-
cution thereon. Ibid.
5. When A loaned money to B, to be used by B in re-
building a certain mill of B's, which had been de-
stroyed and was being rebuilt, and it was understood
that A was to have a lien on the mill to secure him,
but no writing or other written memorandum was
made, except the giving of notes for the money, and
there was no charge of accident, fraud or mistake by
which the execution of such a writing was prevented:
Held, That after B's death, on a bill to marshal his as-
sets, equity will not set up in favor of A a lien on the
mill, to the prejudice of the other creditors of B.
Printup vs. Barrett, administrator....
6. Where a wife, with consent of her husband, rents
land on her own account, hires a man to cultivate it,
and furnishes and feeds a horse out of her separate
estate, to be used in making the crop, the crop, when
made, is not subject to a factor's lien given by her hus-
band on his crop, made the same year, for provisions
furnished, especially when the evidence shows that
none of the provisions furnished were used by the
wife in making her crop. Dubose vs. McDonald...... 471
7. An owner of land, who contracts with a cropper that
be shall furnish to the cropper certain supplies with
which to make the crop, and that the share of the
cropper should not be moved from the place until such
advances are paid for, has a right to retain the crop
until said advances are paid, against the cropper and
all purchasers from him, or mortgagees, subsequent to
the date of the contract. Appling vs. Odom et al....... 583
8. An affidavit by an officer or employee on any steam-
boat, made under section 1969 of the Code, for the
purpose of foreclosing a lien on such boat for any
debt that the affiant may have against the owner or
lessee of the boat, must state the name of the person
or persons owing the debt, as well as comply with the
other requirements of the statute. This is necessary
to give the State authorities, who cannot proceed
solely in rem in such a case, jurisdiction. And where
the averment is, that demand was made upon the
agent, it should state that the demand was made on
the agent of the owner or lessee, as the case may be,
and not on the agent of the boat. Cape Fear Steam-
boat Company vs. Torrent et al.........
9. The affidavit being the foundation of the proceeding,
the execution issued thereon must conform to it, and
cannot supply its defects. Where the affidavit con-
tains all the requirements of the law, the execution, if
defective, may be amended so as to make it conform
to the affidavit. Ibid.
|