Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

resale nor the amount realized thereat was material in an action for defendant's breach of contract.-Brooke v. Laurens Milling Co. (S. C.) 806.

Where a contract for the sale of corn authorized the buyer to resell in case of the buy

er's breach, such provision, if authorizing a sale

before the date of performance, did not contain an implied guaranty by the seller of the market price on the date of sale.-Brooke v. Laurens Milling Co. (S. C.) 806.

8. Remedies of buyer.

*Actions for breach of contract to sell goods having no market price and actions in reference to the manufacture of goods for sale are exceptions to the rule that the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time and place of delivery.-Robert. R. Sizer & Co. v. G. T. Melton & Sons (Ga.) 1055.

*In an action for failure to deliver goods sold, the measure of damages held the difference between the contract price and the market price. -Robert R. Sizer & Co. v. G. T. Melton & Sons (Ga.) 1055.

In an action for breach of a contract for the sale of lumber, such commodity held not one of which it may be said that it had no market value as a matter of law at the time and place of delivery.-Robert R. Sizer & Co. v. G. T. Melton & Sons (Ga.) 1055.

[blocks in formation]

Of judgment, see "Judgment," § 12.

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Selling liquors within certain distance from school, see "Intoxicating Liquors," §§ 5, 6. Special or local laws, see "Statutes," § 1. § 1. Public schools.

Act Aug. 22, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 473), creating the Jenkinsburg public school district, was repealed by the general act providing for the creation of local tax district schools, approved August 23, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 425), as amended by Act Aug. 21, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 61).Edalgo v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 846.

*Act Aug. 23, 1905 (Acts 1905. p. 425), as amended by Act Aug. 21, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 61), providing for the creation of local tax district schools held not a violation of the uniformity rule of the Constitution as to taxation. -Edalgo v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 846.

*Act Aug. 23, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 425), as amended by Act Aug. 21, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 61), providing for the creation of local tax district schools, is a valid law of uniform operation, and repeals all laws which are so inconsistent that prior laws and the new law cannot stand together.-Edalgo v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.)

846.

SCIRE FACIAS.

Though show cases were warranted to look like those in another store, yet evidence, as to the operation of such other show cases and not to their appearance, would be inadmissible.Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg. Co. (Ga. App.) To forfeit recognizance, see "Bail," § 1. 222.

Defendant having pleaded an express warranty and partial failure of consideration, evidence that the article sold was defective was properly admitted.-Burr v. Atlanta Paper Co. (Ga. App.) 373.

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

Competency of evidence obtained by unlawful search, see "Criminal Law," § 8.

*An arrest without warrant and search of the person to ascertain whether he is violating the law prohibiting carrying concealed weapons is unreasonable within the Constitution.-Hughes v. State (Ga. App.) 390; Stewart v. Same (Ga.

For a breach of the warranty of a warehouse receipt that the articles represented are in existence and in the custody of the bailee, the purchaser may recover the price or proceed against the warehouseman at his option.App.) 395. Livingston v. U. Anderson & Son (Ga. App.) 505.

§ 9. Conditional sales.

*Where an attachment for purchase money is levied on property to which plaintiff in attachment has reserved title, a sale is void unless a quitclaim conveyance was recorded as required by Civ. Code, § 5432.-A. G. Rhodes & Son Furniture Co. v. Jenkins (Ga. App.) 897.

SECONDARY EVIDENCE.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 4.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," $ 9.

SEIZURE.

A seizure and illegal sale, and purchase by See "Searches and Seizures." vendor at such sale of property conditionally sold, effects a rescission of the contract, and the purchaser can recover the amount of the price, less the reasonable value of its use.-A. G.

SELF-DEFENSE.

Rhodes & Son Furniture Co. v. Jenkins (Ga. See "Homicide," § 4.
App.) 897.

*A contract construed, and held to constitute a conditional sale.-Whitlock v. Auburn Lumber Co. (N. C.) 909.

SEPARATION.

See "Husband and Wife," § 4.

SERVICES.

*A dry kiln conditionally sold, not having been delivered by request of vendee, the parties held to stand in the same position with regard to its destruction by fire as if it had been delivered. -Whitlock v. Auburn Lumber Co. (N. C.) 909. See "Master and Servant," § 2.

*A vendee of machinery conditionally sold held liable on notes executed in part payment, though the machinery was subsequently destroyed by fire.-Whitlock v. Auburn Lumber Co. (N. Č.) 909.

SERVITUDES.

See "Easements."

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM.

§ 1. Nature and grounds of remedy.
*A partner owing his former partner, and
such creditor partner being insolvent, held en-
titled to apply a sufficient amount of his indebt-
edness to discharge a partnership liability to a
third person.-Childress v. Jordan (Va.) 563.
2.

Subject-matter.

charges held entitled to unload the goods at the wharf.-Riddick v. Dunn (N. C.) 439.

SIGNALS.

From trains, see "Railroads," § 9.

SLANDER.

*Where one, having bought the business of another, fills an order sold by the latter to a See "Libel and Slander." third person, and sues in such other's name to his own use, such third person may set off counter demands existing against the nominal plaintiff.-Durant Lumber Co. v. Sinclair Lumber Co. (Ga. App.) 485.

*A cause of action ex delicto cannot be set off against a cause of action on notes.-McLendon Bros. v. Finch (Ga. App.) 690.

SETTLEMENT.

See "Accord and Satisfaction"; "Payment"; "Release."

SPECIAL LAWS.

See "Statutes," § 1.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

By purchaser at executor's sale, see "Executors and Administrators," § 6.

Parol or extrinsic evidence, see "Evidence," § 9. § 1. Contracts enforceable.

Of bill of exceptions, see "Exceptions, Bill of," of one of the parties cannot be enforced by § 2.

SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES.

Rule against sheriff for fine collected, "Fines.'

see

Sale by constable on execution, see "Execution," § 4.

§ 1. Powers, duties, and liabilities. Where the sheriff levied on crop, but neglect ed to sell the same, and is ruled for failure to make the money, answer held insufficient in part. -Prince v. Walker (Ga. App.) 61.

Where a sheriff is called to respond by a rule nisi, and is liable to an execution or an attachment for contempt, it is error to strike from his answer any meritorious matter of defense. -Read Phosphate Co. v. S. Weichselbaum Co. (Ga. App.) 122.

*The answer of a sheriff to a rule for the distribution of funds in his hands until traversed is conclusive, but, when answer is traversed, any issues of fact must be submitted to the jury unless submitted to the court by agreement.-Read Phosphate Co. v. S. Weichselbaum Co. (Ga. App.) 122.

*An executory contract in fraud of creditors either against the other.-Sewell v. Norris (Ga.) 637.

*Unless the material stipulations of a contract are made out with sufficient definiteness for the court to do justice concerning them, it will not undertake to decree specific performance.-McMillan v. McMillan (S. C.) 431.

*Payment of the purchase money alone cannot support an action for specific performance of a parol contract to convey land, where the possession was not changed after the alleged contract.-McMillan v. McMillan (S. C.) 431.

*Improvements necessary to specific performance of a verbal contract to convey defined.McMillan v. McMillan (S. C.) 431.

§ 2. Proceedings and relief.

Defendant held not entitled to compensation for improvements made while he wrongfully withheld possession of land and after notice that plaintiff intended to assert his rights.—Alston v. Connell (N. C.) 441.

On an accounting between one entitled to a conveyance of land under an option and the of an allowance for improvements to the land owner for use and occupation, etc., the basis is not the cost thereof, but the amount by which the value of the land has been enhanced.

A sheriff held liable for failure to levy on growing crops under a fi. fa. because of an out--Alston v. Connell (N. C.) 441. standing bill of sale to secure advances.-Hixon v. Callaway (Ga. App.) 1120.

*An officer may defend a rule to show cause why he did not levy a fi. fa. by showing that, despite defendant's possession of the property, there was a superior outstanding title in a third person. Hixon v. Callaway (Ga. App.) 1120.

*A sheriff may be allowed to answer a rule to show cause why he failed to levy a fi. fa. at any time before the rule is made absolute.Hixon v. Callaway (Ga. App.) 1120.

An option, and not a deed of trust, held to constitute the correct basis for an accounting. and hence 6 per cent. interest, being the legal rate on the balance due, was properly allowed, and not 8 per cent. as stipulated for in the deed of trust.-Alston v. Connell (N. C.) 441.

*Plaintiff failing to obtain decree for specific performance of parol contract to convey land held entitled to recover the price paid.-McMil lan v. McMillan (S. C.) 431.

SPEED.

*Where an officer fails to levy a fi. fa. on property in the defendant's possession or to make the money within the time prescribed by law, injury to the plaintiff is presumed.-Hixon Of vessel, see "Collision," § 1. v. Callaway (Ga. App.) 1120.

SHIPPING.

See "Collision"; "Wharves."

§ 1. Carriage of goods.

A carrier not having been informed of consignee's intention not to be bound by the estab

SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.

See "Intoxicating Liquors."

STARE DECISIS.

lished custom of consignees to pay wharfage See "Courts," § 2.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

STATEMENT.

By witness inconsistent with testimony, see "Witnesses," § 4.

Of plaintiff's claim, see "Pleading," § 2.

STATES.

Amendment of pleading in action by state, see "Pleading," § 4.

Courts, see "Courts."

Judicial notice of laws of another state, see "Evidence," § 1.

Legislative power, see "Constitutional Law," § 2.

Mandamus to state officers, see "Mandamus," § 2.

Proving statutes of foreign states, see "Statutes,' $ 6.

Public lands, see "Public Lands," § 1.

Taxation of state bonds, see "Taxation." § 3. Use of name of, in mandamus proceedings, see "Mandamus," § 3.

§ 1. Fiscal management, public debt, and securities.

A coupon bond of a state is a negotiable instrument, and the state issuing the same incurs the same responsibilities as an individual.Ehrlich v. Jennings (S. C.) 922.

Const. art. 10, § 11, forbidding the General Assembly from creating any further debt without first submitting the question to the voters, held not to bar a bona fide holder of a coupon bond of the state from exchanging the same for a certificate of stock, under Laws 1892, pp. 24, 25, $8 1, 2, though such bond had been theretofore redeemed, but again put in circulation by theft.-Ehrlich v. Jennings (S. C.) 922.

A bona fide holder of a coupon bond of the state held entitled to exchange the same for a certificate of stock, as provided by Acts 1892, pp. 24, 25, §§ 1, 2, though the same had been theretofore redeemed, but not canceled as quired by section 3. p. 26, and again restored to circulation.-Ehrlich v. Jennings (S. C.) 922. § 2. Actions.

re

*A suit to restrain the Comptroller General from proceeding to collect a license tax against petitioner. a corporation, under the license tax act of 1904 (24 St. at Large, p. 462), as amend-§ ed by the act of 1905 (24 St. at Large, p. 827), held not a suit against the state.-Ware Shoals Mfg. Co. v. Jones (S. C.) 811.

*Mandamus to compel the state treasurer to exchange a certificate of stock for a coupon bond, as authorized by the express provisions of Laws 1892, pp. 24, 25, §§ 1, 2, is in no sense a suit against the state without its consent.Ehrlich v. Jennings (S. C.) 922.

STATUTES.

Judicial notice of laws of another state, see "Evidence." § 1.

Laws denying due process of law, see "Constitutional Law," § 6.

"Bailment"; "Bankruptcy," §§ 1, 4; "Banks and Banking," § 1; "Bills and Notes," § 6; "Bridges," 1; "Burglary," § 1; "Cancellation of Instruments," § 2; "Carriers." §§ 1, 5-7, 10, 11; "Chattel Mortgages," §§ 2, 4; "Clerks of Courts"; "Collision," § 1; "Commerce, § 2: "Common Law"; "Coroners" "Corporations," §§ 3, 4; "Costs," § 2; "Counties," §§ 1, 3, 5; "Courts," § 4; "Covenants," § 1; "Criminal Law." §§ 3, 11, 17, 18, 20. 22, 25-27, 29, 30, 37, 39, 40; "Damages," § 3 "Death," § 1; "Deeds," § 2; "Depositions" "Descent and Distribution"; "Discovery," 1: "Dismissal and Nonsuit," § 1; "Disorderly Conduct"; "Divorce.' § 4; "Drunkards"; "Easements," § 1; "Ejectment," § 1; "Eminent Domain," § 1; "Evidence," §§ 8, 10; "Exceptions, Bill of," § 1; "Execution," §§ 1, 2, 4, 5: "Executors and Administrators," §§ 2, 4, 8; "Exemptions," § 1; "False Pretenses' "Fines"; "Fraud," § 2; "Fraudulent Conveyances," § 1; "Game"; "Gaming," § 1; "Garnishment," §§ 1, 4; "Grand Jury"; "Guardian and Ward," §§ 1, 2; "Highways," § 1; "Homicide," § 6; "Husband and Wife," § 3; "Injunction," § 3; "Insurance," 88 12. 9, 10; "Intoxicating Liquors"; "Judgment," $$ 1, 3, 5, 11; "Jury," § 2; "Justices of the Peace," 88 1-3; "Landlord and Tenant." $$ 3, 5; "Larceny," §§ 1, 2; "Libel and Slander," §1; "Licenses," § 1; "Life Estates"; "Limitation of Actions"; "Logs and Logging"; "Mandamus," § 1; "Marriage"; "Master and Servant," §§ 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14; "Mechanics' Liens": "Mortgages," §§ 2, 3, 5; "Motions"; "Municipal Corporations." $5; "Negligence," §§ 1, 4; "New Trial," § 2; "Parties," § 3; "Partition," § 1: "Partnership," § 2; “Paupers," § 1; "Pleading," § 1; "Possessory Warrant"; "Public Lands," § 1: "Railroads," §§ 5, 6, 8, 10, 11; "Reference," §§ 1, 2; "Schools and School Districts," § 1; "Sunday"; "Taxation," §§ 2-5; "Trespass," § 1; "Trial," §§ 4, 6; "Vagrancy"; "Vendor and Purchaser," § 3; "Venue, § 1: "Waters and Water Courses," § 1: "Weapons" "Wharves"; "Wills," § 3; "Witnesses," §§ 2. 3.

[ocr errors]

Exchange of state bonds, see "States." §§ 1, 2.
State boundaries, see "Boundaries," § 1.
Statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of."

1. General and special or local laws. Const. art. 9, § 2, providing that no charter of incorporation shall be granted, changed, or amended by a special law, relates to private or quasi public corporations, and not to school districts.-State v. McCaw (S. C.) 145.

Act 25 St. at Large, p. 731, amending Act 20 St. at Large, p. 246, extending the boundaries of a school district, held not in violation of Const. art. 3. § 34, subd. 4, prohibiting special laws incorporating educational societies.-State v. McCaw (S. C.) 145.

*Acts 25 St. at Large, p. 731, amending act 20 St. at Large, p. 246, creating a school disviolation of Const. art. 3, § 34, subd. 4, prohibtrict by extending its boundaries, held not in

Laws denying equal protection of law, see "Con-iting a special act incorporating a school disstitutional Law," § 5.

Laws granting special privileges or immunities, see "Constitutional Law." § 4. Laws impairing obligation of contracts, see "Constitutional Law." § 3. Legislative powers and delegation thereof, see "Constitutional Law," § 2.

Provisions relating to particular subjects. See "Action," § 2: "Adverse Possession." § 1; "Appeal and Error." §§ 1. 3. 6-8, 10, 15, 19; "Arbitration and Award," § 1; "Arrest," § 1; "Attachment," 88 2, 5; "Bail," § 1;

trict.-State v. McCaw (S. C.) 145.

*Under Const. art. 3, § 34, subd. 11. providing that special laws shall not be passed where a general law is possible, construed in connection with article 11, § 5, does not render a separate act extending the boundaries of a school district already created unconstitutional. -State v. McCaw (S. C.) 145.

§ 2. Subjects and titles of acts.

*Title of Acts 1903, p. 579. amending the charter of the city of Macon, held broad enough to embrace the provision in reference to the *Point annotated. See syllabus.

issue of bonds for establishing a sewer system. | make it effectual is implied.-State v. Cain (S. -Smith v. City of Macon (Ga.) 713. C.) 937.

Act 1903 (24 St. at Large, p. 81), held not in violation of Const. art. 3, § 17, as relating to two separate subject-matters.-McTeer v. Southern Express Co. (S. C.) 930.

§ 3. Amendment, revision, and codification.

*An act dealing with a single subject-matter, valid as to one phase, but inoperative as to the other, may be amended by an act relieving the defects applicable to the one portion, so as to complete the scheme of the original act.Edalgo v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 846.

*An act approved August 23, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 425), as amended by Act Aug. 21, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 61), does not violate the Constitution (Civ. Code 1895, § 5779), relating to repeals; this provision having no application to repeals by implication.-Edalgo v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.) 846.

§ 4. Repeal, suspension, expiration, and

revival.

*A statute revising the whole subject-matter of a former one, or a series of statutes, becomes to the full extent of its terms the exclusive rule governing the subject.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

*The purpose of a statute revising the whole subject-matter of a former one is the provision of a new and comprehensive system of law as to the subject-matter, so that the work consists of inclusion only by means of express and implied enactments and re-enactments and express and implied adoption of existing laws.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

*In seeking the intent of a statute, regard must be had to the subject-matter and all the surrounding circumstances known to the Legislature.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

Awkwardness, informality, and terseness of expression in a statute cannot be imputed to the incompetency or lack of wisdom on the part of the Legislature, nor to the perpetration of fraud and trickery upon it.—State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

The Legislature is presumed to have had full knowledge of the subject-matter of statutes passed by it.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

Courts will not presume that the Legislature in referring to all the amendments made to the charter of a town did not take notice of one of them, because, since the passage of the act making such reference, its validity has been denied, for it was not within the domain of legislative action and power to pass on the question of its validity.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

*An interpretation of a statute or clause thereof which gives it no function to perform, must be rejected as unsound.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

Ambiguity in a statute defined.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

That which is necessarily implied in a statute or must be included in it to make the terms used have effect according to their or dinary meaning is as much a part of it as if declared in express terms.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

*The language of a statute revising the whole subject-matter of a former one relating to a given subject within the scope of the act is *However awkard and unusual the language presumed to be the full expression of the legis- of a statute may be, the legislative intent manlative will as to that matter.-State v. Hardenifested by it must be ascertained and enforced (W. Va.) 715. as the law.-State v. Harden (W. Va.) 715.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

.271, 385. 673
.327, 416

§§ 83a, 86.....

769

$462

567

667

CONSTITUTION.

401 Art. 1, § 5....

20 Art. 1, § 18.

Art. 3, 17.

Art. 3, § 27.

[blocks in formation]

POLITICAL CODE 1895.

CITY CHARTERS.
Swainsboro, § 26.......

LAWS.

1106 Art. 3, § 34, subds. 4, 11.. 145883214, 3215, 3220, 3271 572

175 Art. 5, § 4.

888 Art. 8, § 6.
.1115 Art. 9, § 2.

Art. 10, § 11.
Art. 11, § 5.

LAWS.

588

145 1906, p. 452, ch. 257..... 586

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

88 1105c, 1105f. Amended
by Laws 1906, p. 452,

586

569

591

564

715

« PoprzedniaDalej »