| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Moore v. Barclay |
16 Ala. 158, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Chancery Court at Talladega. Before the Hon. David G. Ligon, Chancellor. |
|
Cases |
|
| Moore v. Thibodeaux |
4 La.Ann. 74, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the District Court of Terrebonne, Burk, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Morrissett v. Com. |
6 Gratt. 673, General Court of Virginia (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Pleas rejected by the Court are not a part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions, or the express order of the Court: And when that is omitted, it is to be presumed that the defendant has waived his pleas. White v. Toncray, 9 Leigh 347. A prisoner is to be examined at the first term of the Court after commitment, but the examination... |
|
Cases |
|
| Morrow v. State |
29 Tenn. 120, Supreme Court of Tennessee (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
This is an indictment under the act of 1839, ch 47. The defendant was found guilty by the jury, and a motion for a new trial, and also a motion in arrest of judgment having been overruled by the circuit judge, an appeal in error was prosecuted to this court. The indictment contains two counts. The first count, in substance, charges that the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Murphy v. Branch Bank |
16 Ala. 90, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Monroe. Tried before the John Hon. Bragg. |
|
Cases |
|
| Murray v. Oliver |
6 Ired.Eq. 55, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Whatever might have been the construction of the residuary clause, had it stood upon the original publication in 1827, it is put beyond doubt, by the republication in May 1828, by the codicil of that date. For, by the republication, the will is made to speak and operate from that time. The act of 1827, ch. 7 had then gone into effect, and gave... |
|
Cases |
|
| Nance v. Coxe |
16 Ala. 125, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Chancery Court of Dallas. Before the Hon. David G. Ligon, Chancellor. |
|
Cases |
|
| Neely v. Police Jury of Tensas |
4 La.Ann. 181, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the District Court of Tensas, Selby, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Neill v. Keese |
5 Tex. 23, Supreme Court of Texas (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Where, upon the sale of lands, the deed is not taken in the name of the person who pays the purchase-money, the trust of the legal estate results to him; and it is now settled that parol proof of such payment of the purchase-money is admissible against the express declaration of the deed, even after the death of the nominal purchaser. (Note 4.)... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Nelson v. Dunn |
15 Ala. 501, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the decree of the Hon. J. W. Lessesne, in vacation, sitting for the Third District, Southern Chancery Division, dissolving an injunction. |
|
Cases |
|
| Nelson v. Nelson |
6 Ired.Eq. 409, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Although the point seems to present but little difficulty, yet it is not worth while to consider what effect, if any, the endorsement of Bowman's bond to John Nelson could have on the devises and bequests to him?? had the endorsement been an effectual transfer of the bond; because the Court is of opinion, that the bond was not transferred, for want... |
|
Cases |
|
| Newcomb v. Smith |
2 Pin. 131, Supreme Court of Wisconsin (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
If the act of 1840, under which this complaint was brought, is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States, or the ordinance of 1787, the judgment of the court below must be reversed. The overflowing of the land of the plaintiff in error, by reason of the dam of defendant in error, is not denied, but the owner of the dam contends... |
|
Cases |
|
| Nicolson v. Burke |
15 Ala. 353, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the County Court of Marengo. Before the Hon. James A. Young, Judge. |
|
Cases |
|
| Noble v. Coleman |
16 Ala. 77, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. George Goldthwaite. |
|
Cases |
|
| Nott v. Marchesseau |
4 La.Ann. 344, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the First District Court of New Orleans, McHenry, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Nuckols v. Mahone |
15 Ala. 212, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Macon. Before the Hon. George W. Stone. |
|
Cases |
|
| Nunn v. Goodlett |
10 Ark. 89, Supreme Court of Arkansas (July 01, 1849) |
1849 |
This action was brought on a bond executed by the plaintiffs in an action of replevin to the Sheriff, which they were required by the 10th Sec. Dig. 844, to give before the execution of the writ of replevin. The bond is in the usual form, conditioned in every respect as required by the statute. There is, however, in the recital of the bond which... |
|
Cases |
|
| O'Conner v. Youngblood |
16 Ala. 718, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Lowndes. Tried before the Hon. Nathan Cook. |
|
Cases |
|
| Ordinary of Marlborough Dist. v. McCollum |
34 S.C.L. 494, Court of Appeals of Law of South Carolina (May 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Voluntary payments, made by an administrator to a guardian, and received by him on account of debts due to his ward as a distributee of both real and personal estate, were appropriated pro rata to both debts. If there be several debts, the debtor has a right to appropriate a payment to the discharge of any one of them. But if no specific... |
|
Cases |
|
| Packwood v. Dorsey |
4 La.Ann. 90, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Buchanan, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Page v. Vandegrift |
5 Harr. 176 (April 01, 1849) |
1849 |
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 |
|
| Pannell v. Hampton |
10 Ired. 463, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The judgment is erroneous; being rendered neither according to the common law, nor the statute. At common law the judgment in replevin, upon a verdict for the defendant, is, that he have a return of the goods, to be held by him irreplevisable; and, upon a non-suit, it is for the return merely. Blk. Com. 149. 1 Arch. Pr. 83. It was by St. 7, Hen. 8,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Parker v. Goldsmith |
16 Ala. 526, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Chambers. Tried before the Hon. Geo. W. Stone. |
|
Cases |
|
| Parker v. McNeill |
12 Smedes & M. 355, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
A daughter is a competent witness in her mother's behalf during the lifetime of her mother, in a suit between a third person and her mother, the latter claiming the property in controversy, although her testimony might go to show title in her deceased father to the property. Admissions made by a party to a controversy, may be the best or the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Pass v. Lea |
10 Ired. 410, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
As to the first objection of the defendant, it is believed the doctrine of estoppel does not apply. It is in the nature of a motion to non suit the plaintiff for want of parties. At the time the deed was made, there were three persons, the children of the deceased sister, who were, with Mrs. Gamble, entitled to the property of John Gamble. And it... |
|
Cases |
|
| Patterson v. Powell |
15 Ala. 205, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Coosa. Before the Hon. G. Goldthwaite. |
|
Cases |
|
| Patton v. Bencini |
6 Ired.Eq. 204, Supreme Court of North Carolina (August 01, 1849) |
1849 |
When creditors, who claim under a deed of trust for the payment of debts, are in a posterior class, they need not make, as parties to their bill, those, who have the prior incumbrance, but they must make, as parties, all who are in their own class. Appeal from the Court of Equity of Buncombe County, at the Spring Term 1849, his Honor Judge BAILEY... |
|
Cases |
|
| Payne v. Bruton |
10 Ark. 53, Supreme Court of Arkansas (July 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The action of replevin is embraced by the last clause of the seventh sec. of chap, 99 Digest, and three years is the limitation. The 7th sec, of chap. 136, Digest, which requires plaintiff to file an affidavit that his right of action has accrued within two years, before the writ of replevin shall issue, is not an act of limitation. Such affidavit... |
|
Cases |
|
| Peace v. Jenkins |
10 Ired. 355, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The question is not as to the weight, but as to the conpetency of the evidence, of which the defendant complains. On his part it was alleged, that the transaction between the plaintiff and her father, John T. Peace, was fraudulent. The plaintiff's deed, being attacked for fraud, it was incumbent on her part to show, that the consideration was a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Peak v. State |
29 Tenn. 99, Supreme Court of Tennessee (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The plaintiff in error and one Susannah Greenwood, were indicted in the Overton circuit court for open and notorious lewdness. The defendants were found guilty by the jury, and Susannah Greenwood was fined 10 cents, and James Peak was fined $50, and ordered to be imprisoned four months, from which judgment he appeals to this court. 1. It is... |
|
Cases |
|
| Peatross v. McLaughlin |
6 Gratt. 64, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 01, 1849) |
1849 |
1. Upon a motion to dissolve an injunction before answer of the defendant, all the allegations of the bill must be taken as true. 2. A judgment debtor having obtained his discharge as a bankrupt subsequent to the judgment, may enjoin the suing out or levy of any execution upon said judgment. William L. Peatross in March 1847, applied to the Judge... |
|
Cases |
|
| People v. Jones |
2 Edm.Sel.Cas. 86, Supreme Court, New York County, New York (May 01, 1849) |
1849 |
How far the confessions of the accused are to be regarded as evidence of the facts stated in them, or are to be binding and conclusive on him. Where it is clearly made out that the firing was willful, the intention or motive of the accused is of no moment, and his state of intoxication is not only no extenuation of the offense, but is not even to... |
|
Cases |
|
| People v. Jones |
2 Edm.Sel.Cas. 86 (May 01, 1849) |
1849 |
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 |
|
| Phereby v. State |
16 Ala. 774, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette. Tried before the Hon. Geo. Goldthwaite. |
|
Cases |
|
| Phifer v. Phifer |
6 Ired.Eq. 155, Supreme Court of North Carolina (August 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The answer, which we feel bound to give to the first enquiry, renders the consideration of the other questions, presented in the bill, unnecessary. We are of the opinion that the will of John Phifer did not confer upon his widow the power to divide his estate among their children by her last will and testament, much less to divide it among them in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Planters' Bank of Tennessee v. Conger |
12 Smedes & M. 527, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Under the enrolment act of 1844, all judgments not enrolled according to its terms, have lost their liens; and those enrolled after the time limited by the act, became liens only from the date of the enrolment; and this is the case though the omission to enroll is not the fault of the plaintiff, his attorney or agent, but purely the neglect and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Pollard v. Merrill |
15 Ala. 169, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Before the Hon. J. D. Phelan. |
|
Cases |
|
| Pool v. Benning |
9 B.Mon. 623, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (June 30, 1849) |
1849 |
Case stated. THIS case must be determined by the construction to be given to the following clause in the will of Anthony Arnold, deceased, made in Virginia, in the year 1782: I leave to my loving wife, Mary Arnold, all my estate, whether real or personal, to be enjoyed by her during her natural life or widowhood, and, at her decease, it is my... |
|
Cases |
|
| Pool v. Davis |
10 Ired. 310, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The will in question was made after the year 1827, and it was properly admitted, that the limitation over is not too remote. The matter controverted is, what part of the fund passes to the executory legatees under the words: the money in the clause, or if she dies without any heirs, for the money to be equally divided amongst William C. Donald's... |
|
Cases |
|
| Portland v. Rowan's Ex'rs |
9 B.Mon. 85, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (January 05, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal bonds. Construction of statutes. ERROR TO THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT. Case stated. THIS action of covenant was brought by the town of Portland, upon the appeal bond executed by Rowan's executors, upon their appeal from the decree of the Louisville Chancery Court, declaring and establishing the right of the town of Portland in and to certain... |
|
Cases |
|
| Potts v. House |
6 Ga. 324, Supreme Court of Georgia (February 01, 1849) |
1849 |
[1.] On appeal from an order of the Court of Ordinary, establishing a will, the burden of proof, as to the capacity of the testator, rests upon the party claiming under the will, and the propounder must go forward on the trial, and is entitled to open and close the argument. [2.] The opinions of physicians, in relation to the sanity of the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Powell v. Knox |
16 Ala. 364, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the County Court of Lowndes. Tried before the Hon. Edward H. Cook. |
|
Cases |
|
| Powell v. McKee |
4 La.Ann. 108, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Appeal from the District Court of Madison, Curry, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Powell v. Powell |
6 Ired.Eq. 50, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
A. devised and bequeathed as follows: It is my will and desire that my executors hereafter named dispose of such of my property, at public or private sale, real or personal, for the purpose of raising money sufficient to pay my debts. Held, that by this clause, the land is made a primary fund, at the discretion of the executors, for... |
|
Cases |
|
| Pryor v. Duncan |
6 Gratt. 27, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The judgment is affirmed. |
|
Cases |
|
| Pugh v. Mordecai |
6 Ired.Eq. 61, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
We think the object of these parties cannot be legally effected, as it seems to us, that a testamentary guardian cannot be displaced in this manner. It need not be questioned, that the domicil of an infant may generally be changed by the removal of the mother to another State and carrying the infant with her; and that, in such a case, the act of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Puryear v. Puryear |
16 Ala. 486, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1849) |
1849 |
Error to the Circuit Court of Monroe. Tried before the Hon. John Bragg. |
|
Cases |
|
| Raiford v. Raiford |
6 Ired.Eq. 490, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1849) |
1849 |
There must necessarily be a reference in this case, as the defendant admits the right of the plaintiffs to have an account. Two questions were urged, with a view to obtain a declaration of the opinion of the Court, in aid of the Master in stating the account: First: The plaintiffs insist, that the defendant is not entitled to a credit for any... |
|
Cases |
|
| Rankin v. Hoyle |
6 Ired.Eq. 161, Supreme Court of North Carolina (August 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The question presented for our consideration, has not hitherto, so far as we are aware, been decided or even discussed in our Courts. The counsel for the defendants admits, that, prior to the year 1816, a power to appoint to or among children did not authorize an appointment among grand children. Sug. on Pow. ch. 9, sec. 5, page 501, (Law Lib. Ed.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Ratcliff v. Ratcliff |
12 Smedes & M. 134, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (January 01, 1849) |
1849 |
The probate court, by consent of parties, may try an issue made up between the distributee of an estate and the administrator, as to whether the administrator has neglected to insert in his inventory any property of the estate, and has failed to give in any claims against himself; or the court may refer the issue; or send it for trial to the... |
|
Cases |
|