| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Gonor v. Gonor |
11 Rob. (LA) 526, Supreme Court of Louisiana (September 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of St. Landry, King, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Goodloe v. Clay |
6 B.Mon. 236, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 20, 1845) |
1845 |
The case stated. ALTHOUGH Clay, as the brother-in-law of Rodes, and having confidence in his willingness and ability to reim burse him, may have looked for that reimbursement from him when he made the payments, without even thinking of the liability of his co-surety to contribute, these circumstances do not discharge or repel that liability. And... |
|
Cases |
|
| Goodwyn v. State |
1 Morr.St.Cas. 257, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The record stated that on the 3d day of April, 1844, the following entry was made on the minutes of the court, to wit: The grand jurors returned into court an indictment against William S. Goodwyn, indorsed thereon a true bill, William M. C. Mims, foreman of the grand jury, and returned to consider of further presentments. Said indictment is... |
|
Cases |
|
| Graham v. Abercrombie |
8 Ala. 552, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Writ of Error to the Orphans' Court of Lowndes. |
|
Cases |
|
| Graham v. Lambert |
24 Tenn. 595, Supreme Court of Tennessee (April 01, 1845) |
1845 |
This is a bill filed by the complainants, to review a decree rendered against them, and in favor of the defendants, at the August term, 1836, of the circuit court of Perry county. We are satisfied by an inspection of the testimony and record in that case that the decree ought not to be reviewed. The facts appear to be that, some time in the year... |
|
Cases |
|
| Graham v. Lockhart |
8 Ala. 9, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Perry. |
|
Cases |
|
| Grant v. Hurst |
10 Rob. (LA) 422, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of the First District Buchanan, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Graves v. Hemken |
12 Rob. (LA) 103, Supreme Court of Louisiana (October 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of Ouachita, Curry, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Graves v. Reed |
5 Ired. 357, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Where a sale of property under execution is made by a sheriff or constable, and the property brings more than the amount of the execution, it is the duty of such sheriff or constable to see that the excess is paid to the owner of the property. If he fail to do so, he is liable on his official bond. The case of The State v. Pool, 5 Ired. 109, cited... |
|
Cases |
|
| Green v. Collins |
6 Ired. 139, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The Superior Courts, when an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court, should only state so much of the evidence as raised a question of law at the trial, and then the opinion prayed and given thereon, with simplicity and precision. A report of the whole trial below, is out of place in the case to be sent to the Supreme Court. Where a devise or bequest... |
|
Cases |
|
| Griffith's Ex'r v. Griffith |
5 B.Mon. 511, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (June 27, 1845) |
1845 |
Wills. Witnesses. APPEAL FROM THE DAVIESS CIRCUIT. The case stated. THIS is an appeal from the Circuit Court, reversing an order of the County Court of Daviess, admitting to record a paper presented for record, as the last will and testament of Caleb Griffith, deceased, by the appellant as his executor. The will is objected to on the ground, that... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gullett v. Saffold |
6 Ark. 123, Supreme Court of Arkansas (July 01, 1845) |
1845 |
See the case immediately preceding this. This case is similar in almost every particular in point of fact to the case of Gullett and Wife v. Lamberton, decided at the present term of this court, and the same questions are raised by the record. The principles settled in that case govern in the determination of this, all of which are in favor of the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gunn v. Harrison |
7 Ala. 585, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Error to the Chancery Court of Barbour. |
|
Cases |
|
| Gustine v. Union Bank |
10 Rob. (LA) 412, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of the First District, Buchanan, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Haile v. Rils |
9 Rob. (LA) 509, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of Iberville, Nicholls, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Haley v. Dubois |
10 Rob. (LA) 54, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of East Baton Rouge, Johnson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hall v. Timmons |
2 Rich.Eq. 120, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (December 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Where a minor knows of his title to property and permits another to purchase it without stating his title, he will be barred by the fraud from recovering the property from the purchaser; semble. A party who claims that he is exempt from the operation of the statute of limitations by reason of his disability, is bound to prove it strictly. Bill for... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hamilton v. Hamilton |
2 Rich.Eq. 355, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (May 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The principle which governs all sales at auction, and especially judicial sales, is, that there should be full and fair competition. Any agreement or combination, therefore, the object and effect of which is to chill the sale and stifle competition is illegal, and no party to the agreement or combination can derive benefit from the sale. A... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hamilton v. O'Neil |
9 Mo. 11, Supreme Court of Missouri (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
It is obvious from the slightest examination of the law, that the Legislature has enumerated two classes of widows, for each of whom distinct specific provision is made, assigning to each, in the first instance, rights differing essentially in value and extent. The first comprehends widows upon whom, by the circumstance of the death of the husband,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hancock v. Jordan |
7 Ala. 448, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Madison. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hanna v. Bartlette |
10 Rob. (LA) 438, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of the First District, Buchanan, J. This was an action on a protested bill of exchange, for $150, date 15 April, 1843, drawn by one G. Campbell, and accepted by T. A. Bartlette. The latter answered that he had accepted the bill sued on, with another of the same date and amount, payable on the 1st, of October, 1844,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hargroves v. Cloud |
8 Ala. 173, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Russell. |
|
Cases |
|
| Harney v. Pack |
4 Smedes & M. 229, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
If a deed of trust, void on its face, is offered in evidence in a court of law, it is competent for the court to declare it invalid. W., being guardian for B.'s child, and executor of B.'s will, and also executor of the will of G. W., and guardian of his children, executed bonds to the probate court with J. W. and P., as his sureties in large... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harper v. Archer |
4 Smedes & M. 99, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
An appeal bond, on appeal from the decision of the probate court, payable to the parties, is erroneous; it must be payable to the judge of probate. An infant is in esse, from the time of conception, for the purpose of taking any estate which is for his benefit, whether by descent, devise, or under the statute of distributions, provided the infant... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harper v. Burrow |
6 Ired. 30, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The Court concurs with the presiding Judge on both points. The deed of trust, so far as this case is concerned, is a conveyance of land, and, under the provisions of the Act of Assembly, Rev. Stat. ch. 37, s. 2, can be read in evidence on its registration, without producing the subscribing witnesses. Such has been the uniform construction given to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harris v. Fisher |
5 Smedes & M. 74, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The probate courts, in this state, have no power to entertain a bill of review; such bills are peculiarly matters of chancery jurisdiction. The probate court has no jurisdiction of a bill to correct the general course of administration, by having accounts and reports disallowed, which the court had formerly approved; objections should have been... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harrison v. Balfour |
5 Smedes & M. 301, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (November 01, 1845) |
1845 |
When the injunction of a judgment at law is dissolved, the plaintiff therein may institute instant proceedings on the injunction bond, against all the parties thereto, without the issuance of an execution and its return, upon the judgment at law, since the dissolution of the injunction. After the dissolution of an injunction against a judgment at... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harrison v. Harrison's Adm'x |
2 Gratt. 1, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 01, 1845) |
1845 |
(Absent Cabell, P.) 1. A testator says,--In the utmost confidence in my wife, I leave to her all my worldly goods, to sell or keep for distribution amongst our dear children, as she may think proper. My whole estate real and personal are left in fee simple to her; only requesting her to make an equal distribution amongst our heirs; and... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Havens v. Van Den Burgh |
1 Denio 27, Supreme Court, New York (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
It was not offered to be proved that the testator ever saw or heard of the unexecuted paper. It was not in his handwriting, and it did not appear when it was prepared, or why, if prepared at his request, it was not executed. There is a failure in the offer to connect him with the paper, and we cannot indulge in conjecture concerning it. If,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Havens v. Van Den Burgh |
1 Denio 27 (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Covenant will not lie in this state, on a contract to be performed in Pennsylvania, with a scrawl and the word seal in the locus sigilli, tho', by the law of that state, this constitutes a... |
|
Trial Court Orders |
|
| Hawkins v. Alston |
4 Ired.Eq. 137, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1845) |
1845 |
When property is conveyed by a deed of trust to satisfy certain alleged debts, and the parties stand in a near relation to each other, as father and son, or brothers, and the deed is impeached for fraud, it is incumbent on the parties to offer something more than the naked bond of the one to the other, as evidence of the alleged indebtedness,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hazard v. Agricultural Bank |
11 Rob. (LA) 326, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hemken v. Ludewig |
12 Rob. (LA) 188, Supreme Court of Louisiana (October 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the Court of Probates of Ouachita, Lamy, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hemphill v. Townsend |
7 Ala. 853, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Benton. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hempstead & Conway v. Watkins |
6 Ark. 317, Supreme Court of Arkansas (July 01, 1845) |
1845 |
It is a general rule that if a creditor does any act injurious to the surety, or omits to do any act when required by the surety, which his duty enjoins him to do, and the omission proves injurious to the surety, in all such cases the latter will be discharged, and may set up such conduct as a defense to any suit brought against him, if not in law,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hendricks v. Chilton |
8 Ala. 641, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the Court of Chancery for the 39th District. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hendricks v. Huddleston |
5 Smedes & M. 422, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (November 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The judgments and orders of the probate court are final, and cannot be set aside or annulled by that court, at a term subsequent to that at which they were made. P. H., who became guardian of J. H. in 1834, was, on his petition, in 1843, discharged from his guardianship, (his ward being of full age,) and his accounts and vouchers received and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hendrix v. Trapp |
2 Rich. 93, Court of Appeals of Law of South Carolina (December 01, 1845) |
1845 |
In trespass to personal property, if the general issue alone is pleaded, and the trespass is proved or admitted, the plaintiff must have a verdict for some amount. A license from the plaintiff to do the act complained of, if not specially pleaded, cannot be used in justification, but only in mitigation of damages. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hill v. Com. |
2 Gratt. 594, General Court of Virginia (December 01, 1845) |
1845 |
(Absent Smith and Clopton, J.) 1. On a trial for murder, the dying declarations of the deceased, if made in expectation of death, are competent evidence against the prisoner. 2. The proof of the deceased's expectation of death is not confined to his declarations; but the fact may be satisfactorily established by the circumstances of the case. 3.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hill v. Slaughter |
7 Ala. 632, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Macon. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hobson v. Kissam |
8 Ala. 357, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hobson v. Yancey |
2 Gratt. 73, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The appellees, claiming as children and legatees of John Anderson, together with their deceased mother the widow, obtained a decree against William Anderson, the executor of the decedent, in the County Court of Buckingham for 1876 dollars 96 cents, with interest thereon from 1st of January 1830. The decree was a joint one in favour of the legatees... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Hogan v. Reynolds |
8 Ala. 59, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Error to the County Court of Talladega. |
|
Cases |
|
| Holmes v. Fresh |
9 Mo. 201, Supreme Court of Missouri (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
This was a bill in chancery brought by Fresh against Holmes and others, in which it is alleged that Holmes became an indorser in bank for Fresh for the sum of $1000. Holmes was secured against all liability by reason of his indorsement, by a deed of trust on all the complainant's land in Lewis county. Afterwards, in March, 1840, Fresh being pressed... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hood v. Segrest |
12 Rob. (LA) 210, Supreme Court of Louisiana (October 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of Carroll, Willson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hooper v. Union Bank of Louisiana |
10 Rob. (LA) 63, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Appeal from the District Court of East Baton Rouge, Johnson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Horton v. Horton |
4 Ired.Eq. 54, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The defendant is liable for the sums charged by the Master. Admitting that a guardian of a ward residing here is not bound to secure the estate of the ward in another government, a point we do not decide, that would be no excuse for this defendant. For he had it in his power to have justice done to his ward, without going out of this State, namely,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Horton v. Smith |
8 Ala. 73, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1845) |
1845 |
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Lowndes. |
|
Cases |
|
| Howell v. Hook's Adm'r |
4 Ired.Eq. 188, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1845) |
1845 |
The only question presented by this case, and which the Court is called on to decide, is, whether or not it was the duty of the executor, Benjamin Howell, to collect the money due on the bond of Edward Sasser, and divide it among his children. We think it was not; it results from the very nature of the legacy, that such was not his duty. It is a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Howell v. Howell |
3 Ired.Eq. 522, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1845) |
1845 |
In order to obtain a writ of sequestration and ne exeat at the instance of the remaindermen against the tenant for life of personal property, it is not sufficient that the remaindermen state their fear that the property will be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the State or destroyed; they must also shew reasonable and sufficient grounds for such... |
|
Cases |
|