| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Grider v. Dent |
22 Mo. 490, Supreme Court of Missouri (March 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The only question here is, as to the ruling of the court below in refusing to permit the defendant to prove that the plaintiff had previously, in a judicial proceeding, given evidence that his own mother had given birth to a child before her marriage. The Circuit Court would not permit the proof to be given by defendant, and he brings the case here... |
|
Cases |
|
| Griffin v. Bonham |
9 Rich.Eq. 71, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (November 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where an executor is indebted to the testator upon notes, such notes are considered as paid as soon as they fall due, and the executor is entitled to commissions upon them as for so much money received. Where there are mutually subsisting demands between the executor and testator due at the same time, it is only upon any balance due testator that... |
|
Cases |
|
| Griffing v. Routh |
11 La.Ann. 135, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court, Tenth District, Parish of Tensas, Snyder, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Griffith v. H. Frellsen & Co. |
11 La.Ann. 163, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court, Ninth District, Parish of Carrol, Cooley, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Guthrie v. Guthrie's Adm'rs |
17 Tex. 541, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The matters set up in the answer were not a sufficient defense to the action. The general rule in relation to debtors of an estate is, that to an action brought by an administrator, the defendant cannot plead in offset any demand against the estate accruing since the death of the deceased. To adjust such discounts would encroach on the province of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Gwynn v. Hamilton's Adm'r |
29 Ala. 233, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[BILL IN EQUITY BY DISTRIBUTEE AGAINST ADMINISTRATOR FOR ACCOUNT AND SETTLEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION.] APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Monroe. Heard before the Hon. WADE KEYES. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hair v. Little |
28 Ala. 236, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[TRESPASS QUARE CLAUSUM FREGIT ET DE BONIS ASPORTATIS.] APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Sumter. Tried before the Hon. GEO. D. SHORTRIDGE. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hannah v. Carrington |
18 Ark. 85, Supreme Court of Arkansas (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The equity doctrine is, that a mortgage is a mere security for the debt, and only a chattel interest; and until a decree of foreclosure the mortgagor continues the real owner of the feethough the rule is different at law. The equity of redemption is considered to be the real and beneficial estate, tantamount to the fee at law. A deed of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hargroves v. Thompson |
2 George 211, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. HUSBAND AND WIFE: MARRIAGE VALID: WHEN.The statute of this State, (Hutch. Dig. 492,) which prescribes the forms and ceremonies in which marriages shall be solemnized, does not declare that marriages contracted not in conformity to its provisions, shall be void; hence, if a marriage be solemnized in this State, between parties capable of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harris v. Alderson |
4 Sneed (TN) 250, Supreme Court of Tennessee (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
William Alderson died in Maury county in 1838, leaving a will, which was regularly proved and recorded. The third clause, on which this controversy arises, is in these words: I give and leave in the hands and possession of my two sons, William B. and Balthus C. Alderson, the one-fourth part of said balance of all my estate and the increase... |
|
Cases |
|
| Harris v. Town of Livingston |
28 Ala. 577, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[SUMMARY PROCEEDING FOR VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE.] APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Sumter. Tried before the Hon. THOMAS A. WALKER. |
|
Cases |
|
| Harwell v. Fitts |
20 Ga. 723, Supreme Court of Georgia (November 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] The recital of the payment of the consideration money in a deed, does not fall within the rule by which the party is estopped to deny it. [2.] A creditor who has obtained judgment against his debtor, and levied his execution upon property mortgaged to other persons anterior to his judgment, and which mortgages were not foreclosed at the date... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hatchell v. Kimbrough |
4 Jones (NC) 163, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where a person had rented a place to another to make a crop, in which they were to go halves, the owner furnishing a horse, it was Held to be a tenancy, and the tenant might bring trespass against his landlord for forcibly entering and breaking his close. Where the loss of an eye was the direct and immediate consequence of exposure to which the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hatton v. Landman |
28 Ala. 127, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[BILL IN EQUITY TO ESTABLISH BY PAROL RELULTING TRUST IN LANDS.] APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Madison. Heard before the Hon. E. D. TOWNES. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hayden's Adm'r v. Hayden's Adm'r |
23 Mo. 398, Supreme Court of Missouri (October 01, 1856) |
1856 |
James R. Hayden died intestate subsequent to the year 1850, leaving a widow and three children. Shortly after the death of James R. Hayden, his widow, Sarah Ann Hayden, died intestate. The children were by a former marriage. The estate of James R. Hayden was administered upon by McKinley Hays, and the estate of Sarah Ann Hayden, his widow, by... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hayes v. Clarke |
12 La.Ann. 666, Supreme Court of Louisiana (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of St. Landry, Dupré, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hempstead v. Johnston |
18 Ark. 123, Supreme Court of Arkansas (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
A deed of trust, if valid in other respects, vests the title to the property in the trustee for the benefit of all the cestuis que trust, or such of them as think proper to avail themselves of its provisions, though signed only by the grantor and trustee, and not by the beneficiaries. The assent of the creditors provided for in a deed of trust will... |
|
Cases |
|
| Henderson v. Cargill |
2 George 367, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. HUSBAND AND WIFE: PROOF OF MARRIAGE: EVIDENCE: REPUTATION.In all cases except in actions for crim. con., and in prosecutions for bigamy, the fact of marriage may be established by evidence of the acts and declarations of the parties, by proof of the general repute in the family; and by proof of the declarations of deceased persons, who... |
|
Cases |
|
| Henderson v. Segars |
28 Ala. 352, Supreme Court of Alabama (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[BILL IN EQUITY BY CESTUIS QUE TRUST AGAINST TRUSTEE TO SET ASIDE SETTLEMENT AND COMPEL ACCOUNT OF TRUST.] APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Pike. Heard before the Hon. WADE KEYES. |
|
Cases |
|
| Henderson v. Winchester |
2 George 290, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.An administrator has no right to object to the validity or legality of an execution issued against his intestate as administrator of a third person; and it will be error for the court to quash such an execution on his motion. 2. JUDGMENT: PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY.When a judgment has been rendered in this... |
|
Cases |
|
| Henderson's Heirs v. Rost |
11 La.Ann. 541, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Strawbridge, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Henriette v. Barnes' Heirs |
11 La.Ann. 453, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court, Third District, Parish of Jefferson, Burthe, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Henson v. King |
3 Jones (NC) 419, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Whether an affirmation of the qualities of a chattel sold, is a warranty of soundness, is a matter depending on intention and should be left to the jury. ACTION on the CASE for FALSE WARRANTY and for a DECEIT. The plaintiff having proved the unsoundness of the animal in question, (a mare,) proved by one Seahorn, that, being a neighbor to both... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hermann v. New Orleans & C.R. Co. |
11 La.Ann. 5, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Reynolds, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hewitt v. Stewart's Ex'r |
11 La.Ann. 100, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth District, Parish of West Baton Rouge, Robertson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hicks' Adm'x v. Bailey |
16 Tex. 229, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The law of the case, in its application to the evidence, was fully embraced in the general charge, which was as favorable to the defendant as the evidence warranted, and this was a sufficient reason for refusing the instructions asked by defendant. The instructions asked were rightly refused, for the further reason that they asked the court to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hill v. White |
11 La.Ann. 170, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Morgan, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hines v. Gordon |
2 Hay. & Haz. 222, Circuit Court, District of Columbia (June 20, 1856) |
1856 |
At law. This is an issue from the orphans' court between Jacob Hines and John Gordon and John Fitzhugh to try the validity of a will executed by Mrs. Rachel Hines, the mother by a former husband of the defendants' wives. The following is the caveat of Jacob Hines in the matter of the will of Rachel Hines, deceased: (1) Your caveator respectfully... |
|
Cases |
|
| Holderby v. Walker |
3 Jones Eq. 46, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
It is admitted by the parties to this controversy, that the dissent of the widow to the will of her husband, discharges the share of his estate, which she takes under the law, from the burden of maintaining and educating the infant defendant, Elizabeth Ellington. It is admitted further, that as the life-estate intended by the will for the widow, is... |
|
Cases |
|
| Holliday v. Atterbury |
22 Mo. 512, Supreme Court of Missouri (March 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. The supreme court will not reverse a judgment of a lower court because the verdict of the jury is against the weight of evidence. Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court. This was a suit originally instituted in the Circuit Court of Monroe county, whence it was taken by change of venue to the Circuit Court of Shelby county. The plaintiff (Holliday)... |
|
Cases |
|
| Holmes v. Holmes |
2 Jones Eq. 334, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
This is a petition for partition. The petition alleges, that from the nature of the property, it cannot be divided without prejudice to the interest of all the parties, and prays that the mill may be sold for the purpose of partition, according to the Act of Assembly. Tenants in common are entitled to partition, as of right; coparceners had this... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hooe v. Hooe |
13 Gratt. 245, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 10, 1856) |
1856 |
This case turns upon the construction of the will of the late Alexander S. Hooe of King George. For the plaintiffs it is contended that the devise of the lands called Dissington and Freidland to the testator's son George M. Hooe, operates to except them out of the estate the uses and profits of which had in the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hooper v. Moore |
3 Jones (NC) 428, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
It must now be considered as settled, that before you can impeach the credibility of a witness, by showing that he has previously made inconsistent statements, you must first put to him what are called the usual preliminary questions, in order that he may have an opportunity to explain himself. The Queen's case, 2 Brod. and Bing. 314, (6 Eng. C. L.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hopkins v. Sandidge |
2 George 668, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (October 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. STATUTES: CONSTRUCTION OF: ACT OF 1850 PRESCRIBING FORFEITURE OF LAND FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES, STRICTLY CONSTRUED.-The Act of 1850, which prescribes a forfeiture of land for the non-payment of the taxes due thereon, is in derogation of the principles of the common law, and operates harshly and frequently with injustice to private rights, and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hopkins v. Wright |
17 Tex. 30, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where the plaintiff sued for the recovery of certain property, claiming the same by ordinary allegation of ownership, and by amendment claimed that if her title was not sustained as alleged, she was nevertheless entitled to a widow's share of said property and of the other personal property of her deceased husband, under the laws of Virginia, it... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Horn v. Ross |
20 Ga. 210, Supreme Court of Georgia (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] The presumption, that the seizure of property sufficient in value to satisfy a fi. fa. has satisfied it, is not rebutted by merely showing that the property was sold on the same day on which it was seized, and that the proceeds of the sale were applied to debts of higher lien. In such a case, it is necessary to show that though the sale was... |
|
Cases |
|
| Horton v. Sledge |
29 Ala. 478, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[BILL IN EQUITY FOR PARTITION OF LANDS BETWEEN TENANTS IN COMMON AND ACCOUNT OF RENTS AND PROFITS.] APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Madison. Heard before the Hon. A. J. WALKER. |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision is no longer good law for at least one of the points it contains. |
| Howerton v. Wimbish |
2 Jones Eq. 328, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
There are so many difficulties in the way of the plaintiff, any one of which is a good ground for sustaining the demurrer, that we hardly know upon which to put our opinion. Treating this proceeding as a petition in the cause, we are informed that the cause was instituted in the Court of Equity for Granville County; so, this petition cannot be... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hubnall v. Watt |
11 La.Ann. 57, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans. Augustin, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hudson v. Garner |
22 Mo. 423, Supreme Court of Missouri (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
This is an action for slander. The petition is according to the form under the new code of practice, and it charges that Polly Garner, the wife of the other defendant, Luke Garner, in the presence and hearing of Calvin Beck and divers other persons, on the first day of January, in the year 1854, at the county of Benton, spoke and published the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hunt v. Orwig |
17 B.Mon. 73, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (June 14, 1856) |
1856 |
The objections to the jurisdiction of the court, and to the right of Orwig to maintain this suit as remote vendee, with special warranty only, against Andrew Hunt, as remote vendor, can not avail for the reasons assigned and the authorities referred to by the circuit court. And that there was an eviction, or, what is equivalent to an eviction, a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hunter v. Davis |
19 Ga. 413, Supreme Court of Georgia (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] Was the charge right? This is the sole question. A judgment is not, as we think, technically conclusive of any matter, if the matter is not such, that it had, of necessity, to be determined before the judgment could have been given. This seems to be the best result of the authorities. (1 Starkie's Ev. 223; Phill. Ev. 334; Notes to Phill. Ev.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hunter v. General Ins. Co. |
11 La.Ann. 139, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Kennedy, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hutchins v. Brooks |
2 George 430, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE: CAVEAT EMPTOR.-The maxim of caveat emptor applies, in its fullest extent, to all sales made by executors and administrators, they being not bound, or even authorized by law, to make any statement in their official capacity in relation to the quality of property sold by them. 2. SAME: FRAUD IN, DOES NOT RELEASE PURCHASER.-A... |
|
Cases |
|
| In re New Orleans Draining Co. |
11 La.Ann. 338, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Kennedy, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| In re Routon's Estate |
11 La.Ann. 621, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of the parish of Catahoula, Barry, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Ingram v. Ingram |
4 Jones (NC) 188, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
We do not concur with his Honor upon the first ground of objection taken for the defendant, to wit, that the action was commenced too soon. The law required that the estate should be settled up by the administrator within two years, and the presumption is, that he performed his duty, unless the contrary be shown. This presumption was sufficient to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Inhabitants of Brewer v. Inhabitants of Eddington |
42 Me. 541, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The latter clause of the fourth mode of gaining a settlement in a town, (R. S. of 1841, c. 32, § 1,) provides, that when any new town shall be incorporated, composed of a part of one or more old incorporated towns, such inhabitant as shall actually dwell and have his home within the bounds of such new town at the time of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Inhabitants of Portland v. Inhabitants of Bangor |
42 Me. 403, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The overseers of the poor of the city of Portland committed certain persons to the work-house, by a warrant which described them as persons who, being able of body to work, and not having estate or means otherwise to maintain themselves, refuse or neglect so to do, live a dissolute, vagrant life, and exercise no ordinary calling or lawful... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision is no longer good law for at least one of the points it contains. |
| Jackson v. Stewart |
20 Ga. 120, Supreme Court of Georgia (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] In divorce cases, the property set forth in the schedule filed at the commencement of the suit, does not vest, on the finding of the Jury in favor of the libellant, in the issue of the marriage, absolutely and unconditionally. [2.] The creditors, if any, have the first claim on the property. [3.] The Jury have a discretion to award a part of... |
|
Cases |
|