Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

plea, may be put in. Eppes's Admrs. V. Bagley's
Admr. pl. 5, p. 466.

RESIDENCE.

If the jury find a verdict for the debt in the decla.
ration mentioned, and the plaintiff, in court, re-
lease so much thertof as is equal to the credits
endorsed on the bond ; judgment ought not to
be rendered, to be discharger by the payment of
the sum stated in the condition of the bond,
subject to a deduction of the credits endorsed;
but such deduction ought to be made, and judg.
ment rendered for the real balance due, Grays
v. Hines, p. 439.

1. If there be nothing in the record to shew the con-

trary, the county in which the defendant was ar.
rested to be consi'ered that in which he resided.
Puyne and others v. Ladd, pl. 2, p. 483.

RETURN.

RELIEF.

1. In a case involving trust and confidence, and in

which it appears reasonable to allow the complain.
ant the benefit of the defendant's oath, relief may
be given in equity, although the party neglected
to make the proper defence at law. Spencer

Whue v. Wrison, p. 1 0.
2. See Equity; and Preston and others, Executors of

Wuil, v. Gressom's Distri'uees, p. 110,
3. See Usury; and Fox v. Taliaferra, p. 243.
4. See Forfeitures ; and Nelson v. Carrington, Execu-

tor of Burwell, pl. 7. p. 333.
5. See Bar; and Hawkins v. Depriest, p. 460.

1. If the sheriff's return on a writ be, "executed and

committed to jail for want of bail” judgment
ought not to be entered ag inst the defendant and
bail, but against the defendant only ; notwith.
standing a boud. purporting to be a bail bond,
was returned with the writ. Henry v. Green, p.

227.
2. See Mills; and Dawson v, Moons, pl. 3. p. 535.
3. See Inquisition, and Ibid, pl. 1.
4.

The court ought to permit the sheriff to amend
his return upo. a writ of ad quod damnum at any
time before the judgment upon it. Dawson v.
Noons, p. 535.

1. See Evidence ; and Bohn v. Sheppard, pl. 5, p. 403,

RULE NISI.

1. A testator, in the year 1784. having directed that

his tru ors should sell all luis real and personal
estate for the payment of his debts ; and having
appointed four execators, three of whoin qualified;
a sale in he year 1794, by two of the acting exe-
entors, was considered valid ; and the third ere.
cutor (as well as the fourth, who never qualified)
was presumed to have renounced his right to ad
minister as at the date of the sale in question.
Nelson v. Carrington, Executor of Burwell, pl. 9.

1. It seems illegal and irregular to grant an injunc.

tion, to continue in force until the coming in of
the answer, and then to stand dissolved without
a rule nisi, Rossiv. Woodville and others, p. 324.

P. 333.

REPLEADER.

See Pleading ; and Gallego v. Moore, p. 60.

SALE.

REPLICATION.

P. 97.

1. If the transcript of a record states, that the de.

ferdants tendered - a plea in writing," in hæc
verbo. (setting forth 'i ve pleas;)" to which said plea
the plaintiff replied generally, and issue was join.
ed betwen the parti s;" this should be consi.
dered a general replication to all the pleas; and a
repleader ought not to be awarded. Gallego y .

Moore, p. to.
2. A plia of the act of limitations, in bar of a scire

facias to revive a judgment, cannot be repelled
by a replication, that the defendant, within five
years next beturu the suing out of the scire facias,
promised to pay the amount of the judgment.

Day, E.xecutor of rutes. V. Pickelt, p. 104.
3. If a replication be insufficient, and demorred to

as such; yet if the plea be also insufficieat, the
court will go up to the first fault, and give judge

ment for the plaintiff. Ibid.
4. The declaration being in the name of two plain.

tiffs ; if the replication purport to be in behalt of
one only, it is a repariure in pleading; and, on
demurrer. judgment ought to be entered for the
defendant, unless the plaintiffs move the court
lo amend their replication, which, in that case,
should be allowell, on their paying costs.

Gra.
ham bo Scott v. Graham Lane, p. 205.
5. In debt on a bond with collateral condition, if the

condition be not set out in the declaration, nor
made part thereo fby cyer, it should be distinct

stated in the replication. Ibid.
6. A genera lreplication and demurrer to the same

VOL. IV.

1. See Equity; and Ross v. Hook's Administrators,
2. See Trespass; and Vaughan's Admr, v. Winck.

ler's Exos. p. 136.
3. Under whai circumstances, a sale of land by com-

missioners, in obedience to a decree in chancery,
ought not to be set aside. Fairfax v. Muse's EX
ectors, p. 124.
See Mortgage ; and Pennington v. Hanby, p. 140,

X 144.
5. A sale of a slave belonging to the estate of a testa

tor, by a person named as one of the executors,
but who, at the time of such sale, had not qualified,
and afterwards died, without having qualified, by
giving bond and security, is void against the exe-
cutor wiw did qualify. Monroe, Executor of Jones,

V. James, p. 194.
6. A sale of land by trustees, under a decree in chan-

cery, adjudged invalid, on the grounds that such
sale was not made pursuant to the decree, which
directed as much of the land to be sold as would
pay the debt; (which exciuded the power of sell-
ing in smaller quantities;) whereas the trustees
sold the same, in smaller quantities, at different
times ; (a circumstance which might have dimi.
nished the price obtained) and became them,
selves the purchasers at a very inadequate
price; the sale baving also been made under a
general impression existing in the neighbourhood,
ihat the land had been before sold by private con-

tract. Quarles v Lacy, p. 252.
7. A trustet, or commissioner, selling land under a

4 E

deed of trust, or decree in chancery, ought not to election to have the true quantity ascertained by
permit the creditor's agent to force the sale, at an a survey; it is not unfair or illegal for the pur.
Inadequate price, in the absence of other bidders. chaser to make his election, after discuvenig the
Qurum v. Lacy. p. 252.

quantity by an experimental survey. Nar.
8. A contrei for the sale of 6000 dollars United States

Carrington, Executor of Burweli

, pl. 8.p. 33.1
8 per cent. stock, to be dehvered and regularly 18. A testator, in the year 1784, having dincted that
transfi rrex on a future day; for 0000 dollars cur. his executors should sull' all his real and personal
rent money in hand paid, is not usurious. Bull estate for the payment of his debts; and having
v. Douglas, Administrator of Turnbull. p. 3.33,

appointed four executors.three of whom qualified;
9. In sich (28 , if the certificate of stock be not de a sale, in the year 1794, by two of the aeing tie-

liver d and transferred according to contract, cutors. was considered valid; and the thrlesen
the proper n.easure of compensation is not the tor, (as well as th fourth, who never qualified)
non inal amount of the stock, with 8 per cent. was presumed to have renounoni his right to
intents from the day when it should have been ni ister, as at the date of the sale in qucstiche
delivered, but its true value on that in (includ- 10:11. pl. o.
ing the interest then due,) with awful interest on 19. If the written agreement of sale he signed by tk
such volue untit payment. Ibitl, pl 2.

purcha er, anu one of the two acting excult;
10. A sale ough, not to be set aside on the ground of The other may, by acts in pris, though not in writ.

smaliness of price. if that was occasioned by the ting, (such as delivering poserssion of the land and

acts of the complainant. Forute v. liei ron, p. 316. the like, manifest his a $8: nt to the sale, and cake
11. A sale of part of a cract of land having been made it his own act. Ibid. pl. 10.

under a misconception of the rights of ihe parties; 20. Although a tract of land be decreed to be sold 19
and the purchaser with other plaintiffs, applying satisfy a mortgage, the executors of the mortgage,
to a Cour' i Equity for partition of the land, being authorized by his will to sell all his real and
(suying nothing of the paii sull) among them. personal estate, may sell it for a tull and fair price,
seling and the vendors, and others: to which piir

with the assent of the morgegee, or his atlokat,
uition they appeared onlikd; and the vendors by Ibid, pl. 11
their answer expressing a wish, thai, it parti. 21. A endor, by bringing snit, and ohtaining jedes
tion should be dected, the sale should be set nient for the purchase money, rautits and comme
asid ; the court res inded the sale, and directed firms the sale ; so that it cannot be set aside arba
partition of the whole tract. Minie o others instince. Ibid, pl 12.
V. Mains. p. 328.

22. Ila morgagce, in consequence of assurances that 12. In case of a sale of land by the acre, relief is to be he shall receive his inolity from anothiet quarter,

grantedfrail deficiencies not reasonably imputa. Termit the morgagur tv seil the precises the pur
ble to the varia ion of instrunients, and small er. chaser will be protected; potwitbranding the
rors in surv ys; whether the pur huser has eh. fund from which the mortgaget expected pa je
pressly retained an election to have the tract sur: ment proves delusory. Tuyior v. Cee, p. 354
veyed or not. And this principal is not departed 23. Under what circunstances the mor gapet slibe
froin, but in case of a sale by the trai, the pur. considered as implietly permitting the mortpiger
chaser I learly agreeing to take the hazard of all to sell, and abandoning his claim under tbe wort-
deficiencies upon himself. Nelson v. Carrin 'ton, gure, so far as respects the purchaer and those
Evor of Burzorlt. pl. 1. p 332.

claiming under him. Ibid.
13. The measure of The compensation to be made 24. See Distribution; and Guerrant F. Juhnsen od

for a deficiency: in case of a sale by the acre, une oher's p. 360.
attended with any parricular orcumstances, is 25. See Paper Money ; and Myrick, Admr. of Lundi
the average value of the whole tract ; without v. tams. p. 366.
regard to the circumstance that the deficiency 26. A bill of sale of a slave should be permitted to go
was in this or that description of the land. Ibid,

to the jury as evidence, thuugh no recorded. Feza.
pl 2.

ler v. Lee, p. 373.
14. If an agreement of sale, by an erecutor, under the 27. Sce Decree ; and Chapman v. Armistends, pl. I.
will of his testator, be equivocal, the court should

p. 382.
be inclined to consider it a sal by the acte, and not 28. Set Parties ; and Ilid, pl. 6.
by the cract; it being a dangerous principle, that 29. A sale of a tract of land, by a debtor charged in
executors, or other fiduciary characters, should

executivn, is not necessarily fraudulent and voad
take upon themselves, by means of bargains of as to the er ditors at whose suit be is in custody,
hozoril, to jeopardize the interests confided lo

but may be supporied, if made to a bona fide credi their care lbud pl. 3.

tor, fora rasonable consideration, 30d without any . 15. If N. purchase of B.'s executors a tract of land, as

seciti agrement, or understanding, bari ween the "containing about a specificd number of acres, perties, that the land is to be hulden for be use more or less, at a certain price per acre; the quin. and benefit of such debtor. Bullock v. Irrine's tity to be onertained by atual surrey, it N. shall Admrs. p. 450. require il ;" this is a sale by the acre, if N. shall 30. Se Executions ; and Richardson v. Perkins, pl. 1, require the survey. And if no ti ne be limited by

2. p. 512. the terms of the contract for making his election, 31. See Judgment; and Mutual Assurance Sectly. he has the right of demanding the survey, at any Stanard and others, pl. 2. p. 539. time before ibe whole business shall have bren concluded, and a title to the land made or tender

SATISFACTION. ed by the vendors. Ibid. pl. 4. 16. In such case, the purchaser's right of election to 1. If bail be bound in a recognizance for two defen

have the survey is not determined by bis taking dants; a surrender after judgment of one of them, possession of the land, or giving bonds for the

in due form of law, and a discharge of that urte purchase modey; nor is such right necessarily

from the custody of the sheriff, by the plainti's limited by the last day of payment : for, although written order, is no satisfaction of the judgment

, the day of payment has arrived, he is not bound

nor discharge of the bail; the plainut having to part with the purchase money, nor to make a

never charged him in execution. Higginbatram v, final adjustment of the balence due, until a title

Browns, pl. 2. p. 516. is made or tendered, agreeably to the terms of the contract. Ibid. pl. 5.

SCIRE FACIAS. 17. Where & tract of land is sold as containing about a specified number of acres, more or less, at a cer.

1. See Replication ; Day, Exor. of rates, v. Pickelt, tain price per acre; reserving to the purchaser an

p. 104.

mony

SCROLL.

1. See Seal; and Anderson v. Bullock y Marshall,

pl. 2. p. 442.

SEAL,

1. A writing, by which the party binds himself, his

heirs, &c. to pay a sum of money for value received, as witness his " hamil," (saying nothing of his seal) is not an obligation under seal, but a pro. missory note ; notwithstanding a scroll, purporting to be a seal, be annexed to the signuture, and it be proved, that the writing in question was executed by the plaintiff; it not appearing, expli. citly. that he stated, as well as signed it. Ander. son v, Bullock 6 Marshall, pl. 2. p. 442.

SECURITY,

but removing to another state while it is pending,
can be copelled to give security for costs in the
ground of his absence from this slate? Vane v.

Bird and whers, p. 64.
13. It seems. thala notice, requiring seeurity for costs,

is sufficient, if given to the plaintiff's attorney at

law. [bit.
14. If a decrre be pronounced by a Superior Court of

Chancery ag iinst an executor, in a suit brought
against binand his securities ; but without charg.
ing or exoneriting them hy such decree; and the
executor remove out of the commonwealth with-
out satisfying the same; a second suit may be
brought against him and them, in the Superior
Court of Chancery of any other district, in which
the securities reside, to get satisfaction from them.
Crutcher v. Crutcher's Executor and Securities,

1. Ifa sett-off be claimed in such manner that part

only can with propriety be allowed; it is incum.
bent upon the clainant to separate the admissi-
ble from the objectional parts; otherwise, the
whole should be rejected. Rootes v. Wellford to

Co. p. 215.
2. If a defendant plead, as a set off, an obligation of

the plaintiff commonly called a single bill, assign-
ed to him by a third person, and also a general
plea of payment, and the writing produced appear
not to be an obligatio!, but a promissory note,
which is proved to huve been executed by the
plai tiff, it ought to be received as evidence on
the serond, though no on the first plea. Ander-
son v. Bullock and Marshall, pl. 3. p. 412.

1. An appeal bond, executed by a security only, with.

out a principal, is not s'fficient in law. Day,

Eror.of raies, v. Pickelt, p. 104. 2. See Executors do Administrators ; and Preston Logo

e hers, Exors. of Wall, v. Gressom's Distribulces,

p. 110. 3. The act of December 11th, 1793, (Rev Code, ist

vol. p. 314,) authorizes a motion in a summary way agtinst the deputy sheriff, and his securities, jointly; but not against one or more of those st

curities separately. Harrison v. Lan, p. 238. 4. And this, it seems.) whether the bond be joint on:

ly, or joint and several. Did 5. Under what circumstances a snit in equity may

be brought against the securities of an executor, administrator, or guardian, without any previous jurgment or decree against their principal.

Spotswood v. Dandridge and others, p. 289. 6. Where an executor dies without any personal re

presentative, a Court of Equiry may, at the suit of a legalise, and wihout any previsiis suit having been brought against the executor to convict him of a devastavit, convene tie securities of the executor, or their representatives, and the persons who would like interested in any estate which the executor may have left, and make the securities liable for any misapplication or wasting of the as. sets which shall be established in the progress of

P. 457.

SETT-OFF.

SHERIFF

such suit in Chancery. Ibid, pl. 2. 7. Under like ciriumstances, a court of cquity will

give relief against the securities in a guairlian's bond, and if the executor of the decedent was also guardian to the legatee, the two sets of securities, and their representatives, may be jointly sued.

bbul, pl. 31 8. An appeal bond, executed by a surely only, with

out any principal obligor, is insufficient. Routes v.

Holliday 6 Welch, p. 323. 9. A purchaser of land having given bond and secu

rity for the price, without getting a good title, it is competent to him to bind his surety, as well as himself, by waiving such a title, as he might otherwise have insisted upon, as a condition precedent to the payment of the money. If, therefore, he do not appeal from an order dissolving an injunction, which was granted lum for the want ot' title, his surety has no right to another injane. tion upon the same ground. Ross v. Hudville

and others, p. 324. 10. But, in such case, the purchaser, or the surety,

having a lien on the land for indemnification, is not precluded from going on, and obtaining such conveyance, as he car shew himself entitled to, not withstanding the dissolutiun of the injunction.

Ibid. 11. Upon a rule requiring security for costs, if sufficient

security be tendered, in court, at the first calling, after the expiration of the sixty days, it ought to be received, and the suit ought not to be disnuissed.

Vance v. Bird and others, p. 364. 12. Quære, whether a person, residing within the com.

inonwealth at the rime of commencing his suit,

1. Alleputy sheriff holds his office during the plea.

sure of hus principal, and may by him he ruinoy.
ed from oftie, notwithstanding he has given
bond and security to indemnify the principa in
case of his neglect or misconduct, and it was
agrred between them tha: he should be the depu.
ty for the time that the sheriff should contine in
office under his then commissior ; but the deputy
is uo deprivell thereby of his remedy gainsi the
principal, for an und exercise of such power of

removal. Hoge v. Triq p. 150.
2. If the deputy sue ihe sherifl for furning him out

of office in violation of his contract; a ples, tbat
the plaintiff' had been guy of a certain misf-a-
sance, and other specified improprieties in his of:
tice, from which he was thereforc dismissed by
the defendant, is a full answer to the declaration.

Ibid.
3. Quare, whether a contract between 2 sheriff and

his deputy, that the latter shall perform c!l the
duties of ide sheriftally, rt('pite all the fices and
emoluments arising therefrom, and pay to the
former a certain sum of inoney, be not void un-
der the act of'assembly against buying and selling

of offices? Ibid.
4. The act of December 11th, 1703, (Rev. Code, 1st

vol. p. 314,) anthorizts a notion in a summary
way against the deputy sheriff, and his securities,
jointly, but sot against one or more of those se-

corities separately. Harrison v: Lane, p. 233.
5. And this, (it secas ) whether the bond be joint

only, or joint and several Brid.
6. A notice that a motion will be made for a judge

ment against a sheriif" for the amount of his re.
ccipt for sundry executions for fines. “as appears
by a copy of sail receipt," is stifficient, without
nientioning the aggregait sur dur, ihe separate
amount of each execution, or the time when de
livered to the sheriff. And a judgment thereupon,
for the aggregate sum due, without distinguishing
the amount of each execution, will be sustained,
if conformable to law in other respects. Segouine
v. the Auduer of public accounts, pl. 1. p. 398.

7. A judgment by default against a sheriff for fines

collected upon executions in behalf of the com. monw. alth, may be sustained, although his receipt for the executions be not inserted in the record.

Ibil', pl. 2. 8. Where the default of the sheriff, or other officer,

responsible for fines collected, took place before the 20th of February 1812, judgment ought not to be rendered for interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum, but for five per centum da. mages, and five per centum per annum interest on the whole amount, as in the case of public

taxes. Segouine v. the Auditor. pl. 4. p. 398. 9. A judgment cannot be obtained upon a forth

coming bond, bearing date before the 7th of January, 1807, against the sherith, to whom the estate of a deceased obligor has been committed, as against an executor or administrator in ordinary cases ; but the plaintiff must exhibit his claim, before the court, according to the act of 1792.

Jackson & Reno, Executors of Farrow, v. Ewell, 10. The debt of a sheriff for clerk's tickets, put into

his hands for collection, may, from length of time, connected with other circumstances, be presumed to have been paid without positive proof to that

p. 426,

6. Issues being joined on the pleas of nen detine and

the act of limitations; a verdict, that the defes-
dant doth detain the slavı s, in manner and fore,
&c., is sufficiently responsive to both issues, Bosto

right v. Meggs.p. 145.
7. See Gift ; and Filzhugh's Administratrix v. Besle,

See Legacy ; and Smith and wife v. Towxti's de

ministrator, p. 191.
9. See Sale; and Monroe, Executor of Jenei, V. Janti,

p. 194.
10. A native Anierican Indian, brought into Virginia

since the year 1691, could not lawfully be beld in
slavı ry here; notwithstanding such Indian was a
slave in the country from which he or she was

brought. Bute v. Rachel and others.
11. If a widow executrix purchase slaves for the estate

of her husband, by his direction, with noney left
by him for that purpose ; bui afterwards hold item
as her own, and apply their profits to her own
use; she is to be considered a trustee for the bene
fit of his estate, and responsible in equily, but est
al law, to his legatees. Reduced Ý. Riddick end

Wife. p. 222.
12. And if she marry again, her second husband, holl-

effect Ross v. Darby, .idministrator of Churchill, 11. See Insolvency; and Bullock v. Irvine's Admi.

nistrators, pl. 3. p 450.
12. It seems, that since the attorney at law, who pro-

secutes a suit and obtains judgment, has full pow.
er to receive the money recovered, when levied
by execution. (See Branch v. Burnley, 1 Call, 147)
a demand made by him of the sheriff, by whom it
is levied, is sufficient to authorize & motion
against such sheriff for non-payment. Wilson v.
Stokes & Belts, p. 455.

SLANDER,

P. 428.

ing and using the slaves and their profits, is in like

manner responsible. Ibid. 13. See Bill of Sale; and Fowler v. Lee.pl. 1& 4. p. 373. 14. See Possession ; an Garland v. Enos, p. 504 15. In detinue for slaves, if the judgment of the Sø. perior Court, reversing that of the County Court

, (which was in the plaintiff's favour) be severed by a Court of Appeals, and that of the County Court affirmed; no action lies to recover the pro fits of the slaves, accruing between the date of the judgment of the County Court, and that of its fine affirmance by the Court of Appeals. Aider ser v. Bigger's Admr. p. 528.

SPECIAL VERDICT. See VERDICT. 1. A verdict, submitting to the court, for its jude

ment as tv the law, certain doruments and other evidence, oral and written, (without finding the facts stablished thereby,) is too uncertain and insufficient for a judgment to be founded there. upon. Blank's Administrator F. Foushee, p. 61.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 1. On a bill in eqnity for specific performanee of an

agreement, although the court, if (from the want of evidence, which the defendant, being in conta: macy, ought to discluse) it be not able to direct such performance, may direct ansum of money against him conditionally, for the purpose of compelling the production of such evidence; and, in the event of his not producing it, the defendant will have his election. either to pay that sum, ar to perform the agreement specifically ; yet if the defendant, in obedience to the court's order, do, produce evidence, which, though not entire's sa: tisfactory to the plaintiff is accepted by him, the court ought not thereupon to limit the plaintif recovery to the sum of money so decreed, but should proceed to decree : specific performance. Ross v. Hook's Administrators, p. 97.

1. A declaration in slander, laying the charge in the

alternative, viz. that the defendant spoke certain
words. or words of the same import," is good

after verdiet. Bell v. Bugg, a 260.
2. A declaration in slander, containing only a recital

of slanderous words, and no direct charge that
those words were spoken by the defendant, is bad
after verdict. Donaghe v. Rankin, p. 261.

€

SLAVES,

P. 97

1. A declaration in detinue, for a slave, is insuffi.

cient to support the action, if it omit to state that the slave in question be'onged to, or was the pro. perty of the plaintif, and such defect is not cured

by verdict. Ken! v. Armistead, p. 72. 2. See Equuy ; and Ross v. Hook's Administrators, 3. In detinue for slaves, proof, on the part of the de

fendant, that the plaintiff brought to his house one of the slaves who had run away, and then said he had given them to the defendant's wife, is not conclusive in his favour : but the court may instruct the jury, that if, from the evidence, they believe the plaintiff had given the slaves to the defendant, they should find for him. Boat righe v.

Meg, 8. p. 145. 4. If it be stated in a bill of exceptions, that the plain.

tiff : roved the delivery of the slaves to the defen. danı, to rrm:in in his service until the plaintiff should call for them, and then to be returned; the couit may with propriety instruct the jury that such possession, which was acquired under an agreti condition at the ume," is not to be regard. ed as adverse, unless the defendant prove circum.

stanre's to make it so. Ibid. 5. If the jury find for the plaintiff the slaves in the

declaration mentioned, and, proceeding to state their names and several values, recite the name of one of them erroneously ; such error should be corrected by reference to the declaration. Ibid.

STOCK. 1. See Sale ; and Bull v. Douglas, Administrader of

Turnbull, p. 303.

SUMMARY REMEDY. Of See MOTION.
1. See Notice ; and Segouine v. the Auditor, pl. 1. p.

;
398.
2. See Sheriff's ; and lbid, pl. 2.

SUPERIOR COURTS OF LAW.
1.

Under the 8th and 15th sections of the act to organize and establish a superior court of law is

each county of this commonwealth, it was the
dury of the clerk of the District Court, in a case
in which one of two defendants bad confessed
judg nent and the other had not, to send the pa-
pers to the Superior Court of that county in
which the defendant, as to whom the cause was
still pending, resiled. Payne and others v. Ladd,
And it seems, that if there was nothing in the re-
cord to shew the contrary, the county in wbich
the defendant was to be arrested was to be con
sidered that in which he resided. Ibid, pl. 2.

p. 483,

right has been abandoned. It therefore never
prevails, when such .presumption is out weighed
by opposing facts or circumstances. Nelson v.

Carrington, Errutor of Burweil. pl. 6. p.532.
2. Equity is not fond of taking advantage of forfei.

tures arising mtrely from a lapse of the time spe-
citied : on the contrary, it is the constant corse
to relieve against such forfeitures on making ade-

quate compensation. Ibid, pl. 7. p. :33.
3. See Judgment; and Wrenn v. Thompson - Veitch,

377
4. The debt of a sheriff for clerk's tiekets, put into

his hands for collection, may, from length of time,
conected with other circumstances, be presumed
to have been paid, without positive proof to that
effect, Ross v. Darby, administrator of Churchill,

P. 428.

SUPERSEDEAS.
1. If an appeal be taken, but not perfected, by giving

bond and security, a writ of supersedeas to the
same judgment may be obtained.' Day, Erecutor

of Pales, v. Pickett, p. 104.
2. The effeet of * writ of supersedeas may be er.

tended to a subsequent judgment on a forfeited
forthcoming bond, without issuing another writ.
Bell v. Bugg, p. 260.

TITLE.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

1. See Appeals, (Court of); Nos. 1, 2; Hunter v.

Martin, Devisee of Fairfax, p. 1.

SURPRISE.

1. See New Trial; and Price's Executor v. Fuqua's

Administrator, p. 68.

SURRENDER,

1. If bail be bound in a recognizance for two de.

fendants ; a surrender after judgment of one of
them, in due form of law, and a discharge of that
one from the custody of the sheriff, by the pl.in.
tiff's written order, is no satisfaction of the judg.
ment, nor discharge of the bail; the plaintiff
having never charged him in exerution. 'Higgin-

botham v. Browns, pl. 2, p. 514.
2. A surrender of a defendant by his bail, either be.

fore or after judgment, and his discharge from
custody, without being charged in execution, is no
bar to a ca. sq. against him, whether such dis-
charge from custody was by the plaintiff's order,
or not. Ibid, pl. 3.

1. A purchaser of land having given bond and securi-

ty for the price, without getting a good title, it is
competent to him to bind his surrty, as well as
himself, by waiving such a title, as he might other:
wise have insisted upon, as a condition becerlent to
the payment of the money. If therefore, he do
not appeal from an order dissolving an injunction,
which was granted him for the want of title, bis
surety has no right to another injunction upon
the same ground. Rois v. Woodville and others,

p. 324,
2. But, in such case, the purchaser, or the surety,

having a lien on the land for indemnification, is
not precluded from going on, and obtaining such
conveynce, as he can she'w himself entitled to,
notwithstanding the dissolution of the injunction.

Ibid.
3. See Deficiency; and Nelson v. Carrington, Exor.

of Burwell, pl, 1 & 2. p. 332.
4. See Executors Administralors; and Ibid, pl. 3,
5. See Election; and Ibid, pl. 4 & 5.
6. See Defr.danis ; and Chapman v. Armisleads, pl.

6. p. 382.
7. See Taxes ; and Christy v. Minor, p. 431.
8. A person, having an equitable title to a tract of

land, executed a power of attorney to obtain a
conveyance, but without suthorizing a sale of his
right. The attorney, being induced to believe the
title-bond defective and tinding it inconvenient
to pay the balance due of the purchase money, was
persuaded, notwithstanding the land had greatly
increased in value, to give up the title bond (but
without assigning it) to the husband of a woinen
in whom the legal title was, in consideration of
the husband's giring up to hi:n the unsatisfied
bond for the purchase money. After the death of
the wise, the husband sold the land, as his own,
and the purchaser of him filed a bill in equity, to
injoin a judgment in ejectment, obtained against
him by the heir of the wife, and to get a convey.
ance of the land. It was decided, that the con
tract between the attorney and the husband, did
not stand on such a footing of fairness and equity
that it ought to prevail over the legal title of the
heir of the wife, M Clenahans v. Hannah, p.
499.

SURVEY.

1. See Deficiency; and Nelson v. Carrington, Execut-

tor of Burvell, pl. 1, p. 332.
2. See Élection ; and Ibid, pl. 4, 5, & 8.

TOBACCO.

See Inspectors; and Scott v. Hardaway, p. 263.

TAXES.
1. A deed from the marshal of the Federal Court, to

the purchaser of land sold for non-payment of the
direct la a imposed by the Congress of the United
States, is not sufficient evidence to support the
title of the purchaser on a trial in ejecimin!; but
other proof is requisite of the authority of the
marshal to make such convevance, under the
several aots of congress recited therein. Christy
v. Minor, p. 431.

TRESPASS.

TICKETS.

1. See Clerks ; and Ross v. Darby, Admr. of Clarch.
ill, p. 428.

TIME (LAPSE OF.)

1. In what form the declaration may be drawn, in

trespass, by an executor against an administrator,
for goods taken away by the intestate from the
testator. Vaughan's Administrator v. Winckler's

Erecutor. p. 130.
2. Quere, whether vindictive damages may be recom

ver in such action? Ibid.
3. In trespass for goods taken away, proof by wit.

nesses, that the person, of whom the plaintiff

1. Lapse of time is permitted, in equity, to defeat

an acknowledged right, on the ground only of its
affording evidence of a presumption that such

« Претходна Настави »

Књиге

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of ..., Том 3