§ 49. Certain evidence held competent to
prove partnership.-Shaw v. Jones, Newton &
Co. (Ga.) 240.

§ 50. In an action by a third person against
alleged partners by holding out, evidence of
what was generally known in the community as
to the firm affairs was admissible to show that
the act of holding out as partners was known to
the third person.-Ex parte Wilson (S. C.) 675.
$50. In an action by a third person against
alleged partners by holding out, the conduct and
admissions of an alleged partner is admissible
to prove that the act of holding out was done
either by him or with his consent.-Ex parte
Wilson (S. C.) 675.

$ 52. The existence of a partnership may be
shown by circumstantial evidence.-Ex parte
Wilson (S. C.) 675.

III. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND
LIABILITIES OF PARTNERS.

(C) Actions Between Partners.

§ 108. A note by a partner to the firm held
not enforceable in an action at law in advance of
a settlement of the partnership accounts.-Sum-
merson v. Donovan (Va.) 822.

IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS
TO THIRD PERSONS.

(A) Representation of Firm by Partner.
§ 146. The rule that, where a negotiable in-
strument is made by a member of a trading
firm, a presumption of authority to bind the
firm arises, held to apply when the note is in the
hands of the payee.-Ex parte Wilson (S. C.)
675.

§ 160. Right of person dealing with partner-
ship to assume authority of a partner deter-
mined. Slayden, Fakes & Co. v. Lance (N. C.)
449.

(D) Actions by or Against Firms or Part-

ners.

Process to sustain judgment, see Judgment, § 17
§ 209. Court held to have acted within its
discretion in granting interlocutory injunction,
in view of Civ. Code 1895, § 5054.-Moody v.
Cleveland Woolen Mills (Ga.) 908.

§ 210. Court held to have acted within its
discretion in appointing a receiver, in view of
Civ. Code 1895, § 5054.-Moody v. Cleveland
Woolen Mills (Ga.) 908.

$214. Sufficiency of plea of non est fac-
tum in action on firm note determined.-Griffin
v. Colonial Bank (Ga. App.) 382.

217. The execution of a note in the name
of a firm by one partner is prima facie within
the scope of the partnership business.-Griffin v.
Colonial Bank (Ga. App.) 382.

sold goods on credit to the active partner of de-
§ 217. Evidence held to show that plaintiff
fendant firm whose authority was restricted to
buy only for cash, and that plaintiff had notice
of such restriction.-Slayden, Fakes & Co. v.
Lance (N. C.) 449.

PASSWAYS.

PAUPERS.

value.-Thompson v. Harris (Ga. App.) 629.

§ 158. Landlord, leasing building for particu-
lar purpose, held liable to a firm of which lessee
is a partner for injuries to the business.-De
Foor v. Stephens & Lastinger (Ga.) 786.

§ 160. A person selling goods to a partner,
with notice that such partner's authority is to
buy only for cash, is bound by such restriction.
-Slayden, Fakes & Co. v. Lance (N. C.) 449.

1077.

PAYMENT.

See Accord and Satisfaction; Compromise and
Settlement; Tender.

As condition precedent to enforcing specific per-
formance of contract, see Specific Perform-
ance, § 97.

By principal as discharge of surety, see Princi-
pal and Surety, § 113.

and Purchaser, §§ 175-177.

847. If a trustee gave a creditor of the trust
estate notes as security, and the creditor receiv-
ed on such notes enough to discharge his claim,
he could not apply any part of such receipts to
other claims held by him personally against the
makers of the collateral notes.-Melson v. Trav-
is (Ga.) 936.

V. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS.
Payments for land sold, see Vendor and Pur-
chaser, §§ 335, 338.
Payments of bills and notes, see Bills and Notes,
§ 434.

PAYMENT INTO COURT.

Contract within statute of frauds, see Frauds,
Statute of, § 129.

Judgment in civil actions, see Judgment, § 875.
Payment of bill or note, see Bills and Notes, §
434.

PERJURY.

Commitment of witness for perjury in presence
of jury, see Criminal Law, § 658; Trial, § 29.
Conviction of as affecting competency as wit-
ness, see Witnesses, § 48.

PERPETUATION OF TESTIMONY
See Depositions.

PERSONAL INJURIES.
Causing death, see Death, §§ 17-60.
To servant, liability of trustee of railroad, see
Railroads, § 264.

See Assault and Battery; Electricity, §§ 14–19;
Particular causes or means of injury.
Explosives, §§ 9, 10.

Acts or omissions of carrier, see Carriers, §§

280-321.

Acts or omissions of municipality in general, see
Municipal Corporations, §§ 755-857.

Defects or obstructions in bridges, see Bridges,
§ 38.

Defects or obstructions in highways, see High-
ways, §§ 197, 213.

Defects or obstructions in streets, see Municipal
Corporations, §§ 755-821.

Negligence in general, see Negligence.
Negligence in use of highway, see Highways, §

172.

Negligence in use of street, see Municipal Cor-
porations, & 705.

Operation of railroads, see Railroads, §§ 257,
264, 278, 305-351, 358-401.

PENDENTE LITE.

roads, § 94.

See Property.

See Convicts.

PENITENTIARIES.

PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS.

See Trial, §§ 168-170.

PERFORMANCE.

Of particular classes of duties or obligations.
Contract in general, see Contracts, § 278.
Contract for transportation of passengers, see
Carriers, §§ 264-278.

Offenses involving or affecting, see False Pre-
tenses.

Remedies involving or affecting, see Possessory
Warrant; Replevin.

Sales, see Sales.

Sales by executors or administrators, see Ex-
ecutors and Administrators, §§ 329–349.

Storage, see Warehousemen.

Taxation of, see Taxation.

Wrongful conversion, see Trover and Conver-
sion.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES.

See Executors and Administrators.

In equity, see Equity, §§ 136, 153.

In justices' courts, see Justices of the Peace,
§ 91.
Joinder of causes of action, see Action, $$ 48, 50.
Pleading in anticipation of defense of limita-
tion, see Limitation of Actions, §§ 179, 182.

In particular actions or proceedings.
See Assumpsit, Action of, § 19; Ejectment,
$ 64.

For equitable relief against judgment, see Judg-
ment, & 460.

For injuries by electricity caused by negligence
of city, see Municipal Corporations, § 857.
For injuries from negligence in general, see
Negligence, §§ 108, 113.

For injuries to servants, see Master and Serv-
ant, § 258.

§ 173. A general replication to a plea of
put in issue the material matters of defense
pleaded, and a special reply is not required.—
National Valley Bank of Staunton v. Houston
(W. Va.) 465.

V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION.
In equity, see Equity, §§ 219, 241.
Judgment on demurrer or exceptions, conclu-
siveness, see Judgment, § 656.
Operation and effect as appearance, see Appear-
ance, & 8.

Presumptions on appeal or writ of error, see
Appeal and Error, § 917.

Review of decisions, see Appeal and Error, §
1040.
Review of judgment on fast bill of exceptions,
see Appeal and Error, § 350.

To reform written instrument, see Reformation
of Instruments, § 36.

To remove cause from state to federal court, see
Removal of Causes, § 86.

To revive judgment, see Judgment, § 871.

§ 48. General sufficiency of a declaration,
determined.-D. S. Cook & Son Mining Co. v.
Thompson (Va.) 79.

§ 48. Counts in a declaration which omit in
their averments nothing so essential to the ac-
tion that judgment according to law and the
very right of the cause cannot be given are suffi-
cient.-Union Stopper Co. v. McGara (W. Va.)

698.

§ 64. A petition which sets out in one count
two distinct causes of action is duplicitous.-
Harris v. Wilcox (Ga. App.) 380.

§ 192. Count in assumpsit on special contract
ters based on erroneous interpretation of defend-
ant's liability.-Union Stopper Co. v. Wood (W.
Va.) 702.

§ 205. In a suit to reform certain notes, an
order striking defendant's plea on general de-
murrer held erroneous.-Jackson
V. McCalla
(Ga.) 918.

§ 205. A petition which sets out in one
count two distinct causes of action is subject
to attack on special demurrer, but is good
against a general demurrer.-Harris v. Wilcox
(Ga. App.) 380.

§ 205. That plaintiff may not be entitled to
the full amount claimed in his petition is not
ground for a general demurrer.-A. Cohn & Co.
v. Brown (Ga. App.) 1038.

PLAINT, AND AFFIDAVIT

OF DEFENSE.

Operation and effect as appearance, see Appear-
ance, § 8.
Pleading statute of limitations as defense, see
Limitation of Actions, § 182.

In particular actions or proceedings.
For breach of subscription contract, see Sub-
scriptions, § 21.

For price of goods sold, see Sales, § 354.
On bills or notes, see Bills and Notes, § 476.

(A) Defenses in General.

§ 85. The plea of non est factum may be
filed after the first term as an amendment to
an answer duly filed.-Connor v. Hodges (Ga.
App.) 546.

§ 93. In an action on a note for the price
of a horse, defendant may allege the existence
and breach of both express and implied war-
ranties.-Pidcock v. J. Crouch & Son (Ga. App.)
971; Same v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of La Fay-
ette, Ind. (Ga. App.) 973.

(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in Abate-
ment.

§ 106. The defense that an action is prema-
turely brought is dilatory only, and must be
specially pleaded.-Johnson v. Dodge Mfg. Co.
(Ga. App.) 548.

(E) Set-Off, Counterclaim, and Cross-Com-
plaint.

§ 143. Recoupment held a matter of defense
under the general issue.-Franklin v. T. H. Lil-
ly Lumber Co. (W. Va.) 225.

VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER.

Amended and supplemented affidavits in attach-
ment, see Attachment, § 122.

Amendment in action on bill or note, see Bills
and Notes, § 487.

Review of decisions, see Appeal and Error, §
959.

§ 246. In an action for negligence, intro-
ducing by an amendment into a petition contaiu-
ing only one count contradictory allegations is
erroneous.-Flynt v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga.
App.) 957.

§ 248. In an action against a carrier for loss
of freight burned at the place of shipment,
an amendment changing the destination from a
point from without to a point within the same
state does not introduce a new cause of action.
-Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. Duckworth
(Ga. App.) 1018.

§ 248. In furtherance of justice, a complaint
may be amended to the extent of inserting a new
cause of action.-Erskine v. Markham (S. C.)
286.

§ 258. An amendment to the statement of
grounds of defense held properly refused where
the fact sought to be introduced was omitted
through defendant's own fault.-Hurricane Lum-
ber Co. v. Lowe (Va.) 66.

VII. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION.
§ 291. A plea substantially one of failure of
consideration, or fraud, requires verification un-