| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Dunlap v. Robinson |
28 Ala. 100, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[TRIAL OF ISSUE CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF A WILL.] APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Macon. Tried before the Hon. ROBERT DOUGHERTY. |
|
Cases |
|
| Dunn v. Woodward |
11 La.Ann. 265, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh District, Parish of West Feliciana, Duffel, J., presiding. |
|
Cases |
|
| Duperrier v. Dautrive |
12 La.Ann. 664, Supreme Court of Louisiana (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of the Parish of St. Martin, A. Voorhies, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Dupuy v. Dupont |
11 La.Ann. 226, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth District, Duffel, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Eccles v. Daniels |
16 Tex. 136, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The acknowledgment by the administrator, and the approval by the probate judge, of a claim against the estate, having become a quasi judgment, as we have repeatedly decided, it must have (at least in a high degree) all the effects of a judgment in favor of the creditor; and, as such, it established the right and concluded the matter in controversy.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Edmiston v. Long |
17 Tex. 135, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
This was a suit by a judgment creditor of the estate of Bledsoe to compel the administrator to sell property appertaining to the estate to satisfy his judgment. The probate court rejected the application for the sale, and the creditor appealed. The district court reversed the judgment of the probate court and ordered that the administrator should... |
|
Cases |
|
| Eggleston v. Mundy |
4 Mich. 295, Supreme Court of Michigan (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
An officer cannot levy upon personal property which is mortgaged, whether in possession of the mortgagor or mortgagee, even if the mortgage is not due, unless it contains an express stipulation permitting the mortgagor to retain possession for a definite period, nor then, if that period has elapsed. A chattel mortgage contained the following... |
|
Cases |
|
| Elliott v. Pool |
3 Jones Eq. 17, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where the trustee of an insolvent purchased the trust property at his own sale, and procured the decree of a Court of Equity to validate such purchases, without making the unsecured creditors (who alone were really interested) parties to the suit, he will not be protected by such decree, but, at the instance of such creditors, the property will be... |
|
Cases |
|
| Eulalie v. Long |
11 La.Ann. 463, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the First District Court of New Orleans, Robertson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Ex parte Grantland |
29 Ala. 69, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[MOTION FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AT LAW.] |
|
Cases |
|
| Ex parte Robinson |
1 Bond 39, Circuit Court, SD Ohio (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Habeas corpus. |
|
Cases |
|
| Fairly v. Priest |
3 Jones Eq. 21, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The bill is not multifarious. The plaintiff claims the same fund in two rights: First, in his own right, and secondly, as administrator of his mother, of whom he is the next of kin. So, it was proper to allege both titles; for if one fails, he may entitle himself to a decree under the other, and thus put an end to the litigation. It may be that... |
|
Cases |
|
| Falkner v. Streator |
3 Jones Eq. 33, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where an action at law is instituted in the name of one for the use of another, jurisdiction is frequently exercised in Equity to enjoin the plaintiff at law from dismissing the action. This is put upon the ground of necessity, for the right in controversy being a legal one, can only be established by an action at law; and unless the party entitled... |
|
Cases |
|
| Farmer v. Barnes |
3 Jones Eq. 109, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
An acknowledgment and acquittance contained in a deed, is proof that the money was paid, for, and on account of, the property conveyed in the deed; but it is no evidence, upon the rescission of the deed, that the grantor was to pay the consideration back to the grantee. Where there was a settlement of accounts between parties, with a view of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Farmers' Bank v. Stevens |
11 La.Ann. 189, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth District, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Robertson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Farrell v. Bean |
10 Md. 217, Court of Appeals of Maryland (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The bill in this case was filed in September 1852, by the appellant against the appellee. It alleges that the former was indebted to the latter, in 1846, in the sum of $151, the indebtedness consisting of $50 cash lent, and a judgment for $101, due to Bean by a certain Smith Turner, which the complainant had agreed to pay; that being so indebted... |
|
Cases |
|
| Feagan v. Cureton |
19 Ga. 404, Supreme Court of Georgia (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] The commissioner who executes the commission to a set of interrogateries, is the son of an Attorney for the party taking the testimony. He executes the commission in the office of the father, who cannot be positive whether he was present or not: Held, that the depositions ought to be suppressed. [2.] That a direct interrogatory has not been... |
|
Cases |
|
| Fenter v. Obaugh |
17 Ark. 71, Supreme Court of Arkansas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. A sheriff, having in his hands a writ, issued in a chancery cause, commanding him to take into his possession certain property, then in the possession of the defendant in chancery, and to keep the same until the final decree, unless the defendant should enter into bond, with sufficient security to abide the decree, &c., upon application to F.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Figuras v. Benoist's Adm'r |
11 La.Ann. 683, Supreme Court of Louisiana (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of the parish of Natchitoches, Chaplin, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Fitzgerald v. Ferguson |
11 La.Ann. 396, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Sixth District Court of New Orleans, Cotton, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Fitzgerald v. Vestal |
4 Sneed (TN) 258, Supreme Court of Tennessee (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
This bill was filed to test the validity of the sale of an expectancy. On the 18th of October, 1850, James Fitzgerald made his will, which was proved and recorded after his death in July, 1853, and letters testamentary issued to defendant Vestal. He directed his estate, both real and personal, to be sold, and the proceeds to be divided equally... |
|
Cases |
|
| Flemming v. Rotchford |
11 La.Ann. 400, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Kennedy, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Flint v. Spurr |
17 B.Mon. 499, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
David Robinson died, in Fayette county, in the year 1806, having made a will, which was proved and admitted to record by the Fayette county court. All the provisions of the will have been long since fully executed, except that which forms the basis of this action. The provision is in these words: The residue of my said tract, called the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Flippin v. Banner |
2 Jones Eq. 450, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
No person can read the will, upon the construction of which we are called upon to give an opinion, without being at once impressed with the idea that the testator intended to make an equal division of his estate among his children. This could not well be done with regard to each particular species of property; but it is manifest that he intended... |
|
Cases |
|
| Fluker v. Bobo |
11 La.Ann. 609, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of the parish of Morehouse, Richardson J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Forbes v. Forbes |
11 La.Ann. 326, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Augustin, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Fort v. Union Bank |
11 La.Ann. 708, Supreme Court of Louisiana (November 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Lea, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Foster v. Rutherford |
20 Ga. 676, Supreme Court of Georgia (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] An issue was formed between the surety in a younger fi. fa. and the plaintiff in older ones, as to whether the older fi. fas. had not been paid off, and as to whether the plaintiff in those fi. fas. had not released property of the defendant in them from the fi. fas. The surety tendered in evidence a writing made by the plaintiff in the older... |
|
Cases |
|
| Foster v. State |
2 George 421, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
RECORD: GRAND JURY: INDICTMENT.It must appear affirmatively, from the record, that the grand jury, who found and returned the bill of indictment into court, were sworn; the statement in the indictment that they were sworn, is not sufficient. See Cody's case, 3 How. 27. |
|
Cases |
|
| Foust v. Yielding |
28 Ala. 658, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[ACTION ON OPEN ACCOUNT--APPEAL FROM JUSTICE'S COURT.] APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Blount. Tried before the Hon. GEORGE D. SHORTRIDGE. |
|
Cases |
|
| Fox v. Sandford |
4 Sneed (TN) 36, Supreme Court of Tennessee (September 01, 1856) |
1856 |
This was an action brought by Fox to recover damages against Shepperd, Leeds, and Hoyt, the undertakers, and Sandford, his co-employee, for an injury sustained by the plaintiff from the negligence and unskilfulness of defendant Sandford. The verdict was in favor of the defendants Shepperd, Leeds, and Hoyt, and against Sandford for $1,000 damages.... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision is no longer good law for at least one of the points it contains. |
| Franklin's Adm'r v. Depriest |
13 Gratt. 257, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 10, 1856) |
1856 |
I am of opinion that the third plea offered by the plaintiffs in error that Clement one of the persons to whom the bond sued on was made payable, was not one of the justices sitting in the court at the time the bond was executed, was naught and was properly rejected by the court. By the bond itself the parties who executed it acknowledged and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gaither v. Gaither |
20 Ga. 709, Supreme Court of Georgia (November 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] If a person has capacity to make a will, and a paper is read over to him as his will, and he signs it as his will, a presumption arises that he knows the contents of the paper; but the presumption is not a conclusive one. [2.] A son, married but still young, gave a large legacy to the children of the father, and whilst the son and his wife... |
|
Cases |
|
| Garnett v. Kirkman |
4 George 389, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. NEW TRIAL: STATUTE.The prohibition of the statute (Hutch. Code, 876), that no more than two new trials shall be granted to either party in the same cause, does not apply, where the record shows a bill of exceptions, taken in due form, pending the trial, to the rulings of the court upon points of evidence, and upon the rules... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gautt v. Gautt |
12 La.Ann. 673, Supreme Court of Louisiana (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of St. Landry, Voorhies, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| George v. Greenwood |
11 La.Ann. 299, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Morgan, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Gibson v. Carrell |
13 Gratt. 136, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (February 29, 1856) |
1856 |
It seems to me that this case must be governed by the rules and principles declared in Raines v. Barker, just decided by this court. There is nothing in the language of the will from which to infer an intention on the part of the testatrix to dispose of lands to be acquired after the date of her will. It is proved, however, that the testatrix owned... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gilkeson v. Justices of Frederick |
13 Gratt. 577, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (November 18, 1856) |
1856 |
1. The constitution of Virginia, article 4, ยง 22, 23, 25, in relation to taxation and finance, relate to taxation by the general assembly for purposes of state revenue, and do not apply to taxes, levies, &c. by counties, corporations, &c. for the local purposes of such bodies. 2. The general assembly has full power to authorize counties,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gillett v. Camp |
23 Mo. 375, Supreme Court of Missouri (October 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. A proceeding in a probate court of a sister state against a citizen of the state of Missouri, with constructive notice only, is not a judicial proceeding within the meaning of the constitution of the United States. Error to Warren Circuit Court. The amended petition in this case is as follows: Plaintiff states that in the year of our Lord... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gilliam v. Underwood |
3 Jones Eq. 100, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The only question which the pleadings present arises upon the construction of the residuary clause in the will of the plaintiffs' testator. The clause is in these words, After settling up all my just claims, if anything remains it shall be equally divided between my daughter, Lucy my son John's children, and my son Berry Underwood. The question... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gilman v. Cunningham |
42 Me. 98, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
This is an action of assumpsit for money had and received, to recover the value of a certain amount of gold dust, or the proceeds thereof. The position has been taken by the defendant, that this action cannot be maintained, because, as he alleges, he was a partner of the plaintiff at the time the dust was received; that the partnership has not been... |
|
Cases |
|
| Girod's Legatees v. Pargoud |
11 La.Ann. 329, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Sixth District Court of New Orleans, Cotton, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Godbold v. Lambert |
8 Rich.Eq. 155, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Bill by a creditor to subject land to his demand, sustained. The debtor had purchased the land and fraudulently procured the conveyance to be made to his children. Where plaintiff to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations avers ignorance of the fraud until within four years, the onus of showing notice is on the defendant. No more is required... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gold v. Vaughan |
4 Sneed (TN) 245, Supreme Court of Tennessee (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The complainants, as executors of the last will of Abraham Vaughan, deceased, brought this bill in the chancery court at Lebanon against the defendants, who are the only persons interested in said estate, to have a construction of said will, and the directions of the court as to the disposition of the estate. That portion of the will upon which a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Goodwyn v. Goodwyn |
20 Ga. 600, Supreme Court of Georgia (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] It is not competent to impeach, by witnesses, the memory of a witness in order to disparage his testimony. It must be done by cross-examination. [2.] Where a witness is rejected through the misapprehension of the Court, as to his testimony, it is the duty of the Court to allow the witness to be examined whenever the mistake is discovered. [3.]... |
|
Cases |
|
| Graves v. Leathers |
17 B.Mon. 665, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The only question to be considered in this case is, whether an action can be maintained by the purchaser, on a covenant of warranty contained in a deed executed in January, 1836, for the conveyance of land not in the possession of the vendor at the time of the sale and purchase, but held adversely to his title? By the first section of the act of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gray v. Cole |
20 Ga. 203, Supreme Court of Georgia (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] Not error to refuse to control Counsel under a suggestion that he was misrepresenting the evidence, when he explains that his assertion was only an inference from the evidence, and there were some grounds, though slight, for such an inference. [2.] Charge to the Jury, unwarranted by the evidence, is error. [3.] The Jury may consider as... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gray v. Gray |
20 Ga. 804, Supreme Court of Georgia (November 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] It was the early policy of this State to abolish the English Law of entails and descents, so far as it tended to preserve, undivided, landed estates in families. [2] In this State, bequest of personal property expressed in such terms as would have passed an estate-tail by the Statute de donis conditionalibus, will vest in the persons to whom... |
|
Cases |
|
| Green v. Kornegay |
4 Jones (NC) 66, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
A deed in trust was made to one who had no knowledge of its execution at the time, but shortly afterwards, on being informed of the fact by the draftsman of the deed, he assented to it, agreed to act as trustee, and appointed an agent to get possession of the property, who had the deed registered, and proceeded, as agent, to demand and sue for the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Greenwade v. Mills |
2 George 464, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES IT.-Want of probable cause alone is not sufficient to maintain an action for a malicious prosecution; the plaintiff must also show that the prosecutor acted from malice; although the prosecutor had no probable cause to institute the prosecution, yet if he thought he had, he is not liable for an honest... |
|
Cases |
|