| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Carlisle v. Tidwell |
16 Ga. 33, Supreme Court of Georgia (August 01, 1854) |
1854 |
The new trial was moved for on three grounds. 1. That the verdict was contrary to evidence. 2d. Contrary to Law. 3d. That the plaintiff had discovered new evidence since the trial. There is plainly no foundation for the first and second grounds. [1.] As to the third, the plaintiff's affidavit does not support it-does not say that the evidence which... |
|
Cases |
|
| Carter v. Carter |
6 Cushm. 326, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (October 01, 1854) |
1854 |
In cases like this, whenever the chancellor shall ascertain from the increase of the property, failure of the security, or other cause, that the bond is deficient, he may at any time direct another bond to be given. |
|
Cases |
|
| Carter v. Jordan |
15 Ga. 76, Supreme Court of Georgia (February 01, 1854) |
1854 |
[1.] Equity follows the Law, has become the first maxim of Equity. [2.] Under this maxim, with facts such as are those in this case, a Court of Equity has no jurisdiction for relief, against a person out of the county of his residence. [3.] But it has for discovery. [4.] A bill for discovery, will lie against one who has in the Common... |
|
Cases |
|
| Carter v. Robbins |
8 Rich. 29, Court of Appeals of Law of South Carolina (December 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Paying the debts of a deceased with one's own money, does not make one executor de son tort. |
|
Cases |
|
| Castro v. Illies |
13 Tex. 229, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
We have examined the record with care and attention, and have been unable to perceive any cause to complain of error committed in the court below but upon two grounds. 1st. It is assigned for error, that, by the decree in the court below, other lands were substituted to those conveyed in mortgage, and which could not be reached, by reason of a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cheatham v. Riddle |
12 Tex. 112, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
The first objection urged to the judgment raises the question whether it be necessary for the plaintiff, suing in his representative character, to adduce evidence of his right to sue in that character, when it is not put in issue by a special traverse or denial or by a special plea. By the English Law, where the plaintiff sued as executor or... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cheeves v. Bell |
1 Jones Eq. 234, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
The bill was filed by the Executors of Henry Williams, against his legatees, stating that difficulties had been suggested in the construction of his will in certain particulars, calling upon the court for its advice and direction. In examamining the will with a view to its construction, it will be most convenient to consider the questions raised in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cheshire v. Purcell |
11 Gratt. 771, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (November 23, 1854) |
1854 |
The decision of this cause depends upon the construction of the will of Francis Cannon deceased, disposing of the property in controversy. The intention of the testator must be gathered from the face of the will itself: In the enquiry we can derive but little aid from adjudged cases. In Shermer v. Shermer's ex'ors, 1 Wash. 266, Pendleton,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Chevalier v. Hyams |
9 La.Ann. 484, Supreme Court of Louisiana (September 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Appeal from the District Court of the parish of Natchitoches, Chaplin, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| City of New Orleans v. Graihle |
9 La.Ann. 561, Supreme Court of Louisiana (December 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Appeal from the Sixth District Court of New Orleans, Cotton, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Claycomb's Legatees v. Claycomb's Ex'r |
10 Gratt. 589, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (February 13, 1854) |
1854 |
This is a suit in chancery brought by an executor, who in right of his wife was also one of five residuary legatees of his testator, to recover of the other residuary legatees their respective proportions of a balance reported to be due to the executor from the estate of his testator in an account settled by commissioners appointed by the court of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cleveland, C. & C.R. Co. v. Keary |
3 Ohio St. 201, Supreme Court of Ohio (December 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Corporations are liable for injuries arising from the negligence or carelessness of their agents and officers, in the course of their employment, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as private individuals. The common law of England, when not inconsistent with the genius and spirit of our own institutions, and thus rendered inapplicable to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Clifton v. Lilley |
12 Tex. 130, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Where an order for a new trial was made, upon the payment of all costs by the plaintiff, it was held that the judgment did not become final upon failure to pay the costs before the close of the Term of the Court at which such order was made. The plea of general denial does not put in issue the representative character in which the plaintiff sues.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cochrane v. Winburn's Ex'rs |
13 Tex. 143, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
This suit was once before us on the appeal of the present appellees; it was reversed and remanded for a new trial, and there was a verdict and judgment for the present appellees, from which an appeal has been taken by the appellant, who was the defendant in the Court below. We have examined the record, and do not find a single error prejudicial to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cockrell v. Warner |
14 Ark. 345, Supreme Court of Arkansas (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
The general property in stock running at large vests in the purchaser by a sale, though the property be not delivered; and if the purchaser fails to reduce the estimated number into actual possession in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, and the proof showing that he was acquainted with the number and quality of the stock bought, the loss... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cole v. Leake |
5 Cushm. 767, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (October 01, 1854) |
1854 |
L. and wife filed a petition in the probate court against W. H. C., administrator of P. H. C., deceased, alleging that there were unadministered assets in the administrator's hands subject to distribution to the petitioners and other heirs of the deceased, including the administrator, who was one, and that the deceased had made advancements to each... |
|
Cases |
|
| Collins v. Johnson |
16 Ga. 458, Supreme Court of Georgia (August 01, 1854) |
1854 |
[1.] A person who is an Attorney at Law and engaged in the defence of a suit, gives to the plaintiff a notice to sue other parties. It is doubtful whether, in doing so, he acts as Attorney at Law or Attorney in fact: Held, that he is not, by the Act of 1850, to regulate the testimony of Attorneys at Law, incompetent to prove the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Collins v. Lester |
16 Ga. 410, Supreme Court of Georgia (August 01, 1854) |
1854 |
[1.] The question first to be considered, relates to the admission, in evidence, of the oral-understanding stated by the witness, Robert B. Lester, to have been made with him as agent for the defendant in error. The principle is plain and familiar, that all oral negotiations, conversations and agreements between the parties to a written contract,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Colvin v. Menefee |
11 Gratt. 87, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (May 09, 1854) |
1854 |
1. An instruction given by the court, which upon the statement of the evidence given by the party excepting, could not be injurious to him, is no ground for reversing the judgment. 2. A deed of trust given to secure a debt provides that the grantor shall hold possession of the property until a certain day. Before that day the grantor makes an... |
|
Cases |
|
| Commissioners of Town of Washington v. Frank |
1 Jones (NC) 436, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
The first objection raised in behalf of the defendants, is, as to the competency of Dr. Norcom, as a witness for the prosecution. The objection is placed on two grounds: 1st. The witness is a party of record, being one of the Commissioners of the town; and, 2ndly, that he is a corporator. As to the first, he is necessarily a party plaintiff, by... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cook v. Walker |
15 Ga. 457, Supreme Court of Georgia (July 01, 1854) |
1854 |
[1.] Our first impressions, as to the Law of this case, were very strong, and subsequent examination and reflection have tended only to confirm them. We are clear, that under this marriage settlement, Mrs. Cook took an absolute fee in all the property, real and personal, thereby conveyed; and consequently, that the remainder over, is void; inasmuch... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cook's Lessee v. Carroll |
6 Md. 104, Court of Appeals of Maryland (December 01, 1854) |
1854 |
A prayer, that if the jury find that the material facts recited in a patent are untrue, the patent is void, is erroneous, because it is the province of the court, and not the jury, to decide on the materiality of the facts. It is exclusively the province of the court to interpret all written instruments, and to determine the materiality and force... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cotten v. Thompson |
25 Ala. 671, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Talladega. Tried before the Hon. NAT. COOK. |
|
Cases |
|
| Couch v. Sutton |
1 Grant 114, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
1. Declarations of the grantee of land made after the conveyance are admissible, with corroborating acts and circumstances, such as the grantor's continuance in possession, and the like, to show that a deed, absolute on its face, was a mortgage. 2. A married woman, being bound like others by the recording acts, may be estopped from claiming under... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cox v. Hill |
6 Md. 274, Court of Appeals of Maryland (December 01, 1854) |
1854 |
The bill in this case was filed by Clement Hill, for the purpose of having determined, by the proper judicial tribunals, to whom he was to pay a sum of money due by him on a single bill, executed in favor of Mrs. Cornelia Lansdale, now deceased. The facts which it is important we should notice, may be thus stated: Mr. Hill, to secure the payment of... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Cox v. Morrow |
14 Ark. 603, Supreme Court of Arkansas (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
The action of Replevin in the detinet, as now regulated by statute, may be said to lie in all cases where the plaintiff has the right of property, either general or special, and the right to immediate possession of a chattel taken or detained by the defendant. Where there are several part owners of a chattel, they ought all to be joined as... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Crabb's Adm'r v. Thomas |
25 Ala. 212, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Tuskaloosa. HEARD before the Hon. E. D. TOWNES. |
|
Cases |
|
| Crawford's Ex'r v. Patterson |
11 Gratt. 364, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (July 28, 1854) |
1854 |
The will of Robert Crawford imposed a charge on the estate given to his wife for the keeping, raising and schooling of his children. The estate was of the annual value of three or four hundred dollars; and seems to have been not more than adequate to the support of the family in a plain and comfortable manner. At the testator's death the family... |
|
Cases |
|
| Crosby v. Hawthorn |
25 Ala. 221, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Conecuh. Tried before the Hon. ANDREW B. MOORE. |
|
Cases |
|
| Crowther v. Gibson |
19 Mo. 365, Supreme Court of Missouri (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
1. Declarations which would otherwise be inadmissible in evidence may become so when they are part of a transaction, evidence of which is admissible. Evidence of the declarations of the plaintiff's son was inadmissible. The plaintiff could not be permitted to prove the veracity of her own witness, by showing that, previous to the trial, he had made... |
|
Cases |
|
| Crutchfield v. Danilly |
16 Ga. 432, Supreme Court of Georgia (August 01, 1854) |
1854 |
[1.] If the seller knows of a defect in the title to a part of the thing he sells, which is material to the enjoyment of the rest, and he does not disclose the defect to the buyermuch more, if he represents to the buyer that no such defect exists, and the buyer buys, ignorant of the defectthe buyer, although he has taken a deed, may,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cunningham v. Gray |
20 Mo. 170, Supreme Court of Missouri (October 01, 1854) |
1854 |
1. The act of March 5, 1849, exempting certain property of wives from the debts of their husbands, only applies where the debts are contracted after the passage of the act and before the wife comes into possession of the property. This was an action brought by Cunningham to obtain the legal title and the possession of a lot of ground in the city of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Daniel v. Thomson |
14 B.Mon. 662, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (July 01, 1854) |
1854 |
[Note.--The writ of error in this case was sued out in June, 1847. The case was heard at the winter term, 1847, before Judges Marshall and Breck; Judge Simpson having decided the case in circuit court could not sit. No decision having been given, and Judge Breck having resigned, the case was again argued before Judges Marshall and Graham at the... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Daniels v. Henderson |
5 Fla. 452, Supreme Court of Florida (February 01, 1854) |
1854 |
1. By our Statute of December 11, 1824, providing for the foreclosure of mortgages, an anomalous proceeding is authorized, partaking partly of Chancery and partly of common law principles. 2. Under it, upon a petition for the foreclosure of a mortgage given by husband and wife, to secure the payment of a note of the husband, and for judgment on the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Daniels v. Street |
15 Ark. 307, Supreme Court of Arkansas (July 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Where a defendant in chancery avails himself of whatever benefit he could have by means of his sworn answer, without objecting the want of jurisdiction at the hearing, and raises that question for the first time in the appellate court, the court would lay hold of any vestige of chancery jurisdiction before it would dismiss the cause, and send the... |
|
Cases |
|
| D'Arensbourg v. Chauvin |
9 La.Ann. 98, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Appeal from the First District Court of New Orleans, Larue, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| De Young v. De Young |
9 La.Ann. 545, Supreme Court of Louisiana (November 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Appeal from the District Court of the Parish of Jefferson, Clarke, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Deloach v. Turner |
7 Rich. 143, Court of Appeals of Law of South Carolina (January 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Where son-in-law enters upon land under a conveyance from father-in-law, expressed to be for valuable consideration, no presumption arises that the land was intended as a gift. A slight acknowledgment, made before the statutory period is complete, is sufficient to take a case out of the statute of limitations. Motion by plaintiff to strike out... |
|
Cases |
|
| Derrett v. Alexander |
25 Ala. 265, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Randolph. Tried before the Hon. ROBERT DOUGHERTY. |
|
Cases |
|
| Desobry v. Carmena |
9 La.Ann. 180, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Appeal from the District Court of East Baton Rouge, Robertson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Dew v. Barnes |
1 Jones Eq. 149, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
No rule of law is better settled or more generally known, than that in the construction of a will, the intention of the testator, apparent in the will itself, must govern--and that in order to effectuate that intention, as collected from the context, words may, when necessary, be supplied, transposed or changed. 1 Jarman on wills ch. 16, page... |
|
Cases |
|
| Downey v. Barnett |
5 Cushm. 409, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1854) |
1854 |
A party whose property is about to be sold under an execution or deed of trust, can make a valid and binding contract, previous to the sale, with another person to become the purchaser at the sale, and to permit the party indebted afterwards to redeem the property:-Held, that in such a case, a court of equity will compel the purchaser to convey the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Dowty v. Templeton |
9 La.Ann. 549, Supreme Court of Louisiana (December 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Reynolds, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Dozier v. Lewis |
5 Cushm. 679, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (October 01, 1854) |
1854 |
A surety paying the debt of his principal, is entitled to the benefit of all the security and the lien of the creditor; but he cannot extend the lien or security beyond their effect and operation in the hands of the creditor. Conceding the lien of the judgment as it originally stood to be in full force when the bill was filed, and to have had... |
|
Cases |
|
| Dozier v. Sprouse |
1 Jones Eq. 152, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Smith Dozier died, having his domicil in the State of South Carolina, on the 10th of December, 1831, leaving him surviving the plantiff, who was his only child, and his widow, who is one of the defendants. The widow was appointed administratrix, and sold much of the property, and paid off the debts, and then removed to this State, bringing her only... |
|
Cases |
|
| Drumright v. Philpot |
16 Ga. 424, Supreme Court of Georgia (August 01, 1854) |
1854 |
[1.] A subscribes the name of a firm, of which he claims to be a member, to a contract of sale; B, the other partner, subsequently ratifies the act, by receiving the purchase-money, &c.: Held, that the confirmation or subsequent adoption of B being established, it is competent to give, in evidence, the declarations of A, as to the partnership, made... |
|
Cases |
|
| Duchamp v. Dantilly |
9 La.Ann. 247, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Reynolds, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Dufief v. Boykin |
9 La.Ann. 295, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1854) |
1854 |
Appeal from the District Court of the parish of Terrebonne, Cole. J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Duncan v. Stewart |
25 Ala. 408, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Russell. Tried before the Hon. JOHN GILL SHORTER. |
|
Cases |
|
| Earle v. Reid |
25 Ala. 463, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1854) |
1854 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jefferson. Tried before the Hon. GEO. D. SHORTRIDGE. |
|
Cases |
|