Suit to restrain state officer from collecting
license tax as suit against state, see "States,"
§ 2.
Tax receipts as evidence of title, see "Property."
Tax records as documentary evidence in crim-
inal prosecution, see "Criminal Law," § 11.

Local or special taxes.

§ 5. Collection and enforcement against
persons or personal property.
The misspelling of an official's name to a tax
execution does not invalidate it, where the of-
ficial authorized another to sign it or actually
adopted the signature.-Vickers v. Hawkins
(Ga.) 44.

The addition of the letters "T. C." to the sig-
nature to a tax execution sufficiently indicates
collector.-Vickers v. Hawkins (Ga.) 44.

Bridge taxes, see "Bridges," § 1.

Occupation or privilege taxes.

See "Intoxicating Liquors," § 3; "Licenses,"
$ 1.

§ 1. Nature and extent of power in
general.

The supreme taxing power of the state is
vested in the Legislature, and its exercise of the
power is presumed valid and constitutional.-
Ware Shoals Mfg. Co. v. Jones (S. C.) 811.

The word "property," as used in the Constitu-
tion (Civ. Code, § 5883), does not require the
taxing of public property or any of the lawful
instrumentalities of government.-Penick v.
Foster (Ga.) 773.

*Where a foreign corporation has paid license,
as required by Act 1893, 21 St. at Large, p.
409, to do business in the state, it may also be
required by Act 24 St. at Large, p. 462, to pay
an additional annual tax based on the value of
its property in the state.-British-American
Mortgage Co. v. Jones (S. C.) 417.

3. Liability of persons and property.
*The Constitution and statutes, dealing with
taxation, are to be interpreted in the light of
the fundamental principles that public property
and the various instrumentalities of government
are not subject to taxation.-Penick v. Foster
(Ga.) 773.

General terms in the Constitution or the stat-
utes providing for the collection of taxes are
never allowed their full literal import, if the
effect is to require that to be done which the
law does not authorize or to violate funda-
mental principles.-Penick v. Foster (Ga.) 773.
*The general rule is that public property and
the various instrumentalities of government
are not subject to taxation.-Penick v. Foster
(Ga.) 773.

*Bonds issued by a municipality for loans are
not taxable unless there is clear language in the
law showing that such was the intent of the
lawmakers.-Penick v. Foster (Ga.) 773.

There is not in the tax law of the state any
terms expressly declaring that bonds of the state,
or of its various political subdivisions, are sub-
ject to tax.-Penick v. Foster (Ga.) 773.

Bonds issued by a municipal corporation in
the state in the hands of a resident of the state
are not taxable by the state nor any county
thereof.-Penick v. Foster (Ga.) 773.

§ 4. Levy and assessment.

*An undivided interest in land, or mineral un-
derlying land, cannot properly be entered and
taxed on the land book; and a deed founded on
a sale of such interest for nonpayment of taxes
will be set aside.-Toothman v. Courtney (W.
Va.) 915.

*The entry in the land book of an undivided
interest in land, or mineral underlying land,
and sale and deed for taxes thereon, is not cured

Under the express provisions of Act Dec. 13,
1882 (Acts of 1882, p. 47), a tax execution
against unreturned wild land was properly is-
sued by the tax collector.-Vickers v. Hawkins
(Ga.) 44.

A tax fi. fa. held to recite the necessary juris-
dictional facts required by statute.-Vickers v.
Hawkins (Ga.) 44.

Facts held sufficient to authorize an inference
that an officer adopted the signing of his name
to a tax execution by another as his own sig-
nature. Vickers v. Hawkins (Ga.) 44.

Application to enjoin county auditor from
collecting income tax under Civ. Code 1902, §§
328-331, denied, plaintiff having an adequate
remedy at law under Civ. Code 1902, § 413.-
Fleming v. Power (S. C.) 430.

*Civ. Code 1902, § 413, held not to provide
an adequate remedy against alleged illegal
license taxes imposed on a corporation under
the license tax act of 1904 (24 St. at Large, p.
462), as amended by the act of 1905 (24 St.
at Large, p. 827).-Ware Shoals Mfg. Co. v.
Jones (S. C.) 811.

§ 6. Sale of land for nonpayment of

tax.

An undivided interest in land, or mineral un-
derlying land, cannot properly be entered and
taxed on the land book; and a deed founded on
a sale of such interest for nonpayment of taxes
will be set aside.-Toothman v. Courtney (W.
Va.) 915.

§ 7. Tax titles.

*Bill to set aside tax deed of undivided inter-
est in land, or minerals underlying land, held
required to tender purchase money and taxes
subsequently paid, as a condition precedent to
the setting aside of the deed.-Toothman v.
Courtney (W. Va.) 915.

TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.

Argument and conduct of counsel in action
Opinion evidence in action for failure to de-
against telegraph company, see "Trial," § 3.
liver telegram, see "Evidence," § 10.
Requests for instructions in action for delay
in delivery of telegram, see "Trial," § 9.
Review of questions of fact and findings in ac-
tion for failure to deliver telegram, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 16.

§ 1. Regulation and operation.
Petition held to state no cause of action for
delay in delivery of telegram.-Seifert v. West-
ern Union Telegraph Co. (Ga.) 699.

An allegation in an action against a telegraph
company for failure to deliver a message from
the wife to the husband that she was damaged
to the amount of his salary held properly strick-
en on demurrer.-Glenn v. Western Union Tel-
egraph Co. (Ga. App.) 83.

It is error to sustain a general demurrer to a
petition for failure to deliver a telegram, which
sets forth a breach of contract implied from the

While a telegraph company is bound prompt-
ly to deliver a message sent in cipher if it un-
dertakes to transmit it, it is not chargeable with
the knowledge of the meaning of the words.
Bashinsky v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (Ga.
App.) 91.

sey v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (S. C.) 9.
"Deliver," as applied to a telegram, means
"transmit and deliver."-Kirby v. Western Un-
ion Telegraph Co. (S. C.) 10.

damages makes out a case by proving long de-
*An addressee of a telegram in an action for
lay in delivery and damages resulting therefrom.
Kirby v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (S. C.)
10.

gram held not reasonable, unless telegraph com-
Special damages for failure to deliver tele-
pany had notice.-Kirby v. Western Union Tel-
egraph Co. (S. C.) 10.

Where the alleged loss and damage and the
question as to whether there was a contract or
not and whether such contract if performed by
the addressee included commissions can be de-
termined only by the knowledge of the contents
of a cipher telegram, a special demurrer to the
allegation that a contract was lost by delay in
delivery and that plaintiff would have made com-
missions is properly sustained.-Bashinsky v.
Western Union Telegraph Co. (Ga. App.) 91.

*The right of action of the sendee of a tele-
gram is for the tort from breach of a legal duty
of which a justice court has no jurisdiction.-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Cooper (Ga.
App.) 517.

*A contract for sending a telegram is made
with the sender, and any action by the sendee
for delay in delivery must be an action ex delicto
for negligent breach of public duty.-Western
Union Telegraph Co. v. Cooper (Ga. App.) 517.
*In the transmission of a telegram, the tele-
graph company is the agent of the sender, to
whom, and not to the company, the recipient
must look for damages from error in transmis-
sion.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Cooper
(Ga. App.) 517.

*Suit in an action for failure to deliver a tel-
egram held sufficient presentation of claim with-
in conditions of message.-Smith v. Western Un-
ion Telegraph Co. (S. C.) 6.

*Addressee of message held to have cause of
action for mental anguish for failure to deliver
telegram.-Smith v. Western Union Telegraph
Co. (S. C.) 6.

Union Telegraph Co. (S. C.) 10.

*Telegraph company held not liable for puni-
tive damages for delay in delivering telegram.—
Todd v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (S. C.)
433.

*In an action for delay in delivering a tele-
gram directing the recipient to furnish a car-
riage at a railway station, plaintiff cannot show
mental anguish on account of not being able to
get the carriage for his wife and children where
they were not mentioned in the telegram.-
Todd v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (S. C.)
433.

Where a wife received a delayed telegram that
her husband would not return that night and to
go to her father's, the court cannot say that her
driving through the forest with her infant at
night to her father's home was a voluntary act.
-Cloy v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (S. C.)
972.

*Verdict for delay in delivery of telegram
held excessive, as including punitive damages,
where there was no evidence of willfulness.-
Cloy v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (S. C.)
972.

*Telegram held insufficient to warn telegraph
company of mental anguish caused by the re-
cipient being left at home without protection in
the night. Cloy v. Western Union Telegraph
Co. (S. C.) 972.

TENDER.

*A petition alleging tender of the amount of
a debt, with interest, was sufficient though
plaintiff did not allege how much in dollars and
cents she tendered on the date named.—Askew
v. Thompson (Ga.) 854.

TERMS.

(S. C.) 6.

TESTAMENT.

TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.

THEFT.

TICKETS.

Union Telegraph Co. (S. C.) 9.

fulness.-Dempsey v. Western Union Telegraph

Co. (S. C.) 9.

9, 12.

For offense against labor contract law, see "Mas-
ter and Servant," § 2.

For offense against liquor law, see "Intoxicating
Liquors," § 6.

1. Course and conduct of trial in gen-
eral.

*To entitle defendant in an action for breach
of contract to the opening and conclusion of
the argument he must, before the introduction
of any evidence, admit facts authorizing a ver-
dict for plaintiff.-Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg.
Co. (Ga. App.) 222.

*Where a compliance with warranties was
essential to recovery on a contract, and defend-
ant alleged a breach, he was not entitled to
open and close.-Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg.
Co. (Ga. App.) 222.

*A partial plea of justification will not entitle
defendant in slander to open and conclude.-
Taylor v. Chambers (Ga. App.) 369.

*To entitle defendant to open and conclude,
he must admit in his pleadings sufficient facts
to authorize a verdict for the amount claimed.-
E. Van Winkle Gin & Machine Works v. Pitt-
man (Ga. App.) 379.

*Oral admissions by defendant held insuffi-
cient to entitle him to open and close.-E. Van
Winkle Gin & Machine Works v. Pittman (Ga.
App.) 379.

In an action on a note providing for attor-
ney's fees, an admission in the answer as to
the execution of the note, with a denial as to
notice of intention to sue, is insufficient to en-
title defendant to open and close.-E. Van Win-
kle Gin & Machine Works v. Pittman (Ga.
App.) 379.

*Where, in an action on a note by a corpora-
tion, defendant admits the execution of the
note, such admission, with the presumption of
corporate existence, makes a prima facie case
for plaintiff entitling defendant to open and
close.-E. Van Winkle Gin & Machine Works v.
Mathews (Ga. App.) 396.

*Where, in an action on contract, defendant,
by his pleadings, admits a prima facie case for
plaintiff, he is entitled to open and conclude.
Stiles v. Shedden (Ga. App.) 515.

§ 2. Reception of evidence.

*Whether a case shall be opened after nonsuit
has been made is in the discretion of the court.

-Moore v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (Ga.
App.) 63.

*Where no objection is made to evidence when
offered, a motion to strike it out is properly
denied.-Lee v. Unkefer (S. C.) 343.

3. Arguments and conduct of counsel.
Remarks of counsel to jury, not introducing
any material fact not disclosed by the evidence,
but merely oratorical, held not ground for de-
claring a mistrial.-Western & A. R. Co. v.
York (Ga.) 183.

*Judgment against telegraph company revers-
ed for misconduct of plaintiff's attorney in ar-
gument.-Kirby v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
(S. C.) 10.

§ 4. Taking case or question from jury,
Where there is a conflict in the evidence, it
is error to direct a verdict.-Hester v. Gairdner
(Ga.) 165.

That the allegations of an amended petition
are different from those of the original petition
does not raise a question of fact for the jury.
-Hester v. Gairdner (Ga.) 165.

*Where there was no conflict in the evidence,
and it demanded a verdict for the defendant,
the court under Civ. Code 1895, § 5331, did not
err in directing one.-Brockhan v. Hirsch (Ga.)
468.

*Where the uncontradicted evidence demanded
a verdict for defendant, it was not error to
direct it.-Walker v. O'Neill Mfg. Co. (Ga.)
475.

*Where plaintiff's petition shows that in law
he is not entitled to recover, it is not an abuse
of discretion for the judge to raise the question
and dismiss the action.-Robinson-Humphrey
Co. v. Wilcox County (Ga.) 644.

*Perplexing questions of fact are for the ju-
ry.-King Mfg. Co. v. Walton (Ga. App.) 115.

*A verdict should not be directed unless there
is no issue of fact, or unless the proved facts
can sustain no other finding than that directed.
-Davis v. Kirkland (Ga. App.) 209.

Where there is any conflict as to any mate-
rial issue, it is error to direct a verdict.-Davis
v. Kirkland (Ga. App.) 209.

*The decision of every issue of fact is ex-
clusively for the jury.-Davis v. Kirkland (Ga.
App.) 209.

made by the pleading, it is error to direct a non-
suit.-Adams v. Haigler (Ga. App.) 330.

*Where plaintiff's evidence supports the case

*Where plaintiff's own testimony fairly
shows that he had no cause of action, a non-
suit was properly granted.-McCook v. Dublin
& S. W. R. Co. (Ga. App.) 491.

*Plaintiff having failed to prove his case as
laid, the court should award a nonsuit, and, de-
fendant having introduced no testimony, the
direction of a verdict in its favor was error.-
Caudell v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga. App.) 689.

*Upon a motion for nonsuit, the evidence must
be taken in its most favorable view for plain-
tiff.-McCaskill v. Walker (N. C.) 1073.

*If there is any evidence to go to the jury,
or if plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, a
honsuit will not be granted.-Jonesville Mfg. Co.
v. Southern Ry. (S. C.) 422.

*Where a party has in his possession evidence
which would render certain a fact material to
his success, otherwise left in doubt, and he
withholds such evidence, the court on demur-
rer to the evidence introduced by his adversary
will presume the fact was against him.-
Kirchner v. Smith (W. Va.) 614.

85. Instructions to jury-Province of
court and jury in general.

A requested charge held objectionable as con-
taining an intimation of opinion as to the
amount of proof necessary to overcome a rebut-
table presumption.-Vickers v. Hawkins (Ga.)

44.

*Where the evidence made out a prima facie
case, the grant of a nonsuit was error.-Jen-
kins v. Jones (Ga.) 354.