| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Geron v. Geron |
15 Ala. 558, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Madison. Before the Hon. Sidney C. Posey. |
|
Cases |
|
| Gibson v. White |
4 La.Ann. 14, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Buchanan, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Gilbert v. Bradford |
15 Ala. 769, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Autauga. Before the Hon. George Goldthwaite. |
|
Cases |
|
| Glasscock v. Green |
4 La.Ann. 146, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the District court of Concordia, Barry, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Goddard v. Coffin |
2 Ware 382, Circuit Court, D Maine (April 01, 1849) |
1849 |
This case was tried before the district judge, and a verdict having been rendered for the plaintiff for $8,353.52 damages, a motion was made by the defendant for setting aside the verdict and for a new trial. On this motion, after argument, the court were divided in opinion; one of the judges being for, and one against the motion. After the judges... |
|
Cases |
|
| Goodridge's Heirs v. Fitch |
9 B.Mon. 562, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (September 25, 1849) |
1849 |
Case stated. THE complainants, who are the heirs and legal representatives of George C. Goodridge, deceased, have exhibited this bill against Joseph Fitch, the administrator de bonis non of the estate of said George C., for the purpose of procuring a settlement of his administration accounts, and mainly to have set aside and vacated a sale of some... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gracey v. Davis |
22 S.C.Eq. 55, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (November 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Where a deed is set aside as interfering with the rights of creditors, it is as to those creditors as if it had never existed. The effect of setting aside a deed which interferes with the rights of creditors, is to leave the creditors to enforce their claims and obtain satisfaction according to their legal priorities, or for the Court, if it take... |
|
Cases |
|
| Graham v. Davidson |
10 Ired. 245, Supreme Court of North Carolina (August 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Although it does not expressly appear, it must be understood from the manner in which the case is stated, that the gift of Cato from his grand mother to the plaintiff was by parol, and that the delivery was to the father for the plaintiff, then an infant probably. Such being the case, it may, at the least, be a question, whether the plaintiff could... |
|
Cases |
|
| Graham v. Tankersley |
15 Ala. 634, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the 3d Chancery District, before the Hon. Anderson Crenshaw, Chancellor. |
|
Cases |
|
| Grant v. Lloyd |
12 Smedes & M. 191, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The executor and heirs of the testator filed a bill against a purchaser at the executor's sales, under an order of the probate court, of the testator's real and personal estate, to set the sales aside, on the ground that the property had been sold by the executor at the suggestion of the purchaser, by whom it was bought, for the purpose of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Graves v. State |
1 Ind. 368, Supreme Court of Indiana (May 01, 1849) |
1849 |
This was an indictment for a riot against Joseph A. Graves, Elisha W. Coleman, and Hugh P. Longmore. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and upon the trial the issue was found for the state. Motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial having been overruled, a judgment was rendered upon the verdict by which the defendants were each sentenced to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gray v. Armistead |
6 Ired.Eq. 74, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The answers of Armistead and Latham, as well as that of Corprew, are evasive and unfair, and, taken in connection with the testimony, create a strong suspicion, that the facts are, that, in January 1842, Corprew, being pressed for money and his property being all under execution, borrowed of Latham $650, at a premium of ten per cent, to be returned... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gray v. Perkins |
12 Smedes & M. 622, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The execution of a replevin bond by the defendant in an attachment under the first section of the act of 1843, does not discharge the lien created by the levy of the attachment. Therefore where an attachment was served and the property attached replevied and restored to the defendant, upon his giving the statutory bond to have it forthcoming, to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Grayson v. Com. |
6 Gratt. 712, General Court of Virginia (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
I understand the cases in this Court, and the Court of appeals, on the subject of new trials, to have settled the following principles: That new trials are grantable at the instance of the accused, in all criminal cases. That motions for new trials are governed by the same rules in criminal as in civil cases. That a new trial will be granted: 1.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Green v. Fagan |
15 Ala. 335, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Orphans' Court of Benton. Before the Hon. Robert H. Wilson, Judge. |
|
Cases |
|
| Green v. Phillips |
6 Ired.Eq. 223, Supreme Court of North Carolina (August 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The answer does not confess the equity set up in the bill. It is not evasive, but is a fair response to all the allegations. This is sufficient to dissolve the injunction, as to the amount of the disputed payment. We do not express any opinion as to the disputed facts, as the case may be retained and brought to a final hearing. The interlocutory... |
|
Cases |
|
| Greene v. Tims |
16 Ala. 541, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Marengo. Tried before the Hon. Samuel Chapman. |
|
Cases |
|
| Guild v. Guild |
16 Ala. 121, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Chancery Court of Monroe. Tried before the Hon. A. Crenshaw, Chancellor. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hailes v. Ingram |
6 Ired.Eq. 477, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The only fact in dispute is, whether Sarah Hailes made the sale as executrix or as legatee. We are satisfied from the exhibits and proofs, that she made the sale, as legatee. The bill of sale is executed by her and Alexander Hailes, and does not purport to be executed by her, as executrix. The sale was not made in the manner, in which sales are... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hall v. Andrews |
17 Ala. 40, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Orphans' Court of Dallas. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hall v. Sayre |
10 B.Mon. 46, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 15, 1849) |
1849 |
Femes Covert. Separate estates of femes. ERROR TO THE FAYETTE CIRCUIT. THE land, the subjection of which to the complainants demand, seems to have been the specific object of this suit, and which alone was subjected by this decree, does not constitute any part of the separate estate of Mrs. Hall, as described or secured in the deed of trust... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hall v. Woods |
4 La.Ann. 85, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the District Court of West Baton Rouge, Burk, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hammock v. McBride |
6 Ga. 178, Supreme Court of Georgia (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
[1.] On general principles, a judgment is binding and conclusive on parties and privies, until reversed or set aside by a legal proceeding; and it cannot be collaterally questioned by third persons, except on the ground of fraud and collusion, in the procurement of it. Creditors or bona fide purchasers may attack a judgment fraudulently obtained,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hansley v. Hansley |
10 Ired. 506, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The divorce act requires all the material facts charged to be submitted to a jury, upon whose verdict, and not otherwise, the Court is to decree. It excludes, by necessary implication, from the consideration of the jury, admissions in the pleadings, and, consequently, any made orally on the trial. The purpose is to prevent collusion. That reason... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hardeman v. Harris |
48 U.S. 726, Supreme Court of the United States (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of the State of Mississippi, on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. The facts in the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. Mr. Nelson contended that neither of the exceptions was well taken. The first, because... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harrington v. Roberts |
7 Ga. 510, Supreme Court of Georgia (November 01, 1849) |
1849 |
[1.] Both administrators are parties to the suit below, and to the judgment sought to be reversed; and we are of opinion that both should have joined in the bill of exceptions and writ of error. The doctrine is well settled, that where there are two administrators, one cannot maintain an action alone. 1 Chitty's Pl. 53. 9 Coke, 37, (Hensloe's... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harris v. Wall |
48 U.S. 693, Supreme Court of the United States (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. In February, 1839, the following sealed note was executed: $10,391.06. Clinton, Miss., February, 1839. On or before the first day of January, eighteen hundred and forty, we or either of us promise and bind ourselves,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harrison v. Mock |
16 Ala. 616, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Chancery Court of Lowndes. Tried before the Hon. Jos. W. Lesesne, chancellor. |
|
Cases |
|
| Harrison v. Pool |
16 Ala. 167, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the County Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. A. J. Saffold. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hart v. Roper |
6 Ired.Eq. 349, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The maxim, ignorantia legis neminem excusat, is founded upon the presumption that every one, competent to act for himself, knows the law; but the presumption that he knows it is not conclusive, but may be rebutted. Therefore, when a plaintiff alleges in his bill, that he was ignorant of the law, and the defendant demurs, it seems that... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harven v. Springs |
10 Ired. 180, Supreme Court of North Carolina (August 01, 1849) |
1849 |
We think his Honor erred in his instruction to the jury, and there must be a venire de novo. On the trial, a copy of the will of Thomas Kendrick, the father of the feme lessor of the plaintiff, was offered in evidence, and opposed, upon the ground that it did not appear from the Clerk's certificate, that it had been proved as a will to pass real... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hatcher v. Hampton |
7 Ga. 49, Supreme Court of Georgia (July 01, 1849) |
1849 |
[1.] In applications to a Court of Equity, for an injunction to restrain a trespass, the bill must allege peculiar circumstances, to show that the injury is irreparable and the Common Law remedy insufficient. [2.] The mere allegation that the defendant is felling the timber of the complainant, is not enough, without further averment as to some... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hayden v. Cornelius |
12 Mo. 321, Supreme Court of Missouri (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
1st. It was error in the court to admit the parties, Woods and Todd, makers of the trust deed, to testify, so as to change the terms of the deed, and diminish Hayden's interest in the funds secured thereby, and increase their own. 1 Mo. R. 214; 4 Mo. R. 22; 1 Greenl. 455 to 460, ยงยง 386-9, 390-92. 2nd. The decree is erroneous, for, 1. The... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hayden v. Nutt |
4 La.Ann. 65, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the District Court of Madison, Selby, J. This appeal was taken by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered on the verdict of a jury, in favor of the defendants. |
|
Cases |
|
| Healy v. Rowan |
5 Gratt. 414, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
(Absent Cabell, P.) 1. Marriage articles made between an infant feme and her intended husband, beneficial to her and her contemplated issue, are obligatory upon the parties, and will be enforced in a Court of Equity, by a settlement in conformity therewith, on the application of the issue of the marriage. 2. Marriage articles entered into between... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hearrin v. Savage |
16 Ala. 286, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Orphans' Court of Clarke. Tried before the Hon. Terrell Powers, Judge. |
|
Cases |
|
| Helm's Adm'r v. Young |
9 B.Mon. 394, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (June 13, 1849) |
1849 |
Case stated. THIS bill was filed by B. R. Young and J. Craddock, to enjoin the enforcement against them of two judgments in favor of H. P. Helm, on the ground that they were sureties in the notes on which the judgments had been obtained, and that they were released by reason of indulgences allowed without their consent or knowledge, and in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Herring v. Wilmington & R.R. Co. |
10 Ired. 402, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The position is not tenable, that whenever damage is done, the law implies negligence. But where the plaintiff shews damage, resulting from the act of the defendant, which act, with the exertion of proper care, does not ordinarily produce damage, he makes out a prima facie case of negligence, which cannot be repelled, but by proof of care, or some... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision is no longer good law for at least one of the points it contains. |
| Hill v. Hill |
22 S.C.Eq. 94, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (November 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Where there is a general decree for a settlement, during the life of a wife, the equity of the wife is always intended to embrace the interests of her children, unless by the terms of the decree the children are excluded; and if the wife die after such a decree, the Court will execute it for the benefit of the children. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hill v. Spangenberg |
4 La.Ann. 553, Supreme Court of Louisiana (November 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Buchanan, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hite v. Campbell |
10 B.Mon. 80, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 21, 1849) |
1849 |
THE note of Joseph Hite, John S. Hite, and Hodges, (the two latter being sureties for the first,) having been fully paid and discharged by Hodges, to whom it was delivered by the payee, and his name afterwards torn from the note, could not be resuscitated by any sale thereof, by Hodges, to one of the payers, so as to make it again a note, binding... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hodges v. White |
16 Ala. 335, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the County Court of Barbour. |
|
Cases |
|
| Holeman v. Fort |
22 S.C.Eq. 66, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (November 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The deed of gift was to the joint heirs of the daughter and son-in-law of the donor. They had two children living at the time. The deed was held to be valid, but to operate only in favor of the two children in esse at the time of its delivery, to the exclusion of the afterborn children. If the donee can be identified, either by name or... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hollis v. Francois |
5 Tex. 195, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The doctrines of courts of equity, as to the power of married women over their separate estates, are not recognized as rules by which the power of married women over their separate estates under our statute and their consequent liabilities are to be determined. The statute has prescribed a special mode for the conveyance of the property; and unless... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Holman v. Crane |
16 Ala. 570, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. John Bragg. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hooks v. Branch Bank at Montgomery |
15 Ala. 609, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Macon. Before the Hon. George W. Stone. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hopper v. Ashley |
15 Ala. 457, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Before the Hon. Geo. Goldthwaite. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hopper v. Com. |
6 Gratt. 684, General Court of Virginia (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
1. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor may employ counsel to aid the attorney for the Commonwealth, and such counsel will be permitted to aid in the prosecution. 2. State whether or not you examined the horse tracks towards Crogan's? State whether or not you had any difficulty in following the tracks? These are not improper leading questions. 3.... |
|
Cases |
|
| House v. Fultz |
13 Smedes & M. 39, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
In order to discharge the lien of a deed of trust on personal property, it is sufficient if the grantor, grantee, and trustee regard the deed of trust as at an end, and consider the property as revested in the grantor. In the case of personal property conveyed by recorded deed of trust, no formal release of the deed, or memorandum in writing, is... |
|
Cases |
|
| Houston v. Bogle |
10 Ired. 496, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Before the passage of the Act of 1840, ch. 28, no voluntary conveyance of property, even to a child, could be upheld to defeat an existing creditor, if the creditor could find no other property of his debtor, out of which to obtain satisfaction. The Act of 1840, ch. 28, applies only to voluntary conveyances made after that Act went into force. Its... |
|
Cases |
|