페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

.....

H

1

ton

Gaulden vs. Stoddard. ............ 329

K
Gause adv. Rushin................ 180
Gay vs. Peacock et al...... 84 Kellogg ado. Calhoun.... 231
Gillion vs. Massey .....

221 Kemp adv. Watson ....... 586 Glass et al. vs. Clark et al...... 544 Kersey et al. adv. Cameron et Goolsby adv. Hill.... 289 al.

40 Green vs. the Southern Express Kitchens vs. the State of Ga... 217 Co..... 515 Kuttner adv. Sealy......

594 Griggs ado. Murphy ..... 464 Gunby adv. Perry et al ........... 415

L
Gunn adv. Shaw & Son ........... 584

Lamar vs. Thornton et al......... 48
H
Lane vs. Latimer.....

171

Lane et al. vs. Partee and wife 202 Hall & Co. vs. Davis........... 614 Laney adv. Marble................. 624 Hall, Moses & Co. adv. Mott... 117 | Latimer adv. Lane................. 171 Hand et al. vs. Dexter et al..... 454 Lawrence adv. Rivers............ 283 Hanson vs. Crawley ....... 303 Layton and wife adv. Freeman 58 Hardwick et al. adv. Tomlinson Lazenby adv. Marsh et al........ 153 et al.......

547 Leonard vs. Powell.......... 598 Hartridge, Chisolm & Loyd vs. Lewis adv. Pool & Luff burrow. 162 Fry...

104 Livingston vs. the Mayor and Hawes vs. Paul........ 609 Council of Albany.

21 Hickson vs. Bryan et al ........... 620 Lopez vs. McArdle................. 414 Hill vs. Beall...

607 Hill and wife et al. adv. Fel.

M

554 Hill vs. Goolsby.

289 Mahone vs. Howard et al ........ 98 Hill vs. Wilker...

449
Marble vs. Laney.....

624 Hill vs. the State of Georgia... 484 Marsh vs. Lazenby....

153 Holland vs. Camp et al ........... 424 Massey adv. Gillion .......... 221 Hollingsworth adv. Tanner..... 133 Mathews, Burke & Cameron Holmes vs. Booher, Fee & adv. Winter

652 Co...........

125
Mathews vs. Browning.

222 Hoops vs. Atkins, Dunham &

Mattox adv. Dyer

425 Co.........

109
Maxey vs. Bet......

183 Howard et al. vs. Mahone......... 98 Howes vs. Whipple......

Maxwell and wife adv. Sparks.. 421 322

Mayor and Aldermen of Savan. Huff et al. vs. Huff....

695

nah adv. O'Bryne et al ........ 331 Humber adv. Sims & Co ......... 208 McAffe et al. adv. Sanders...... 684

McArdle adv. Lopez........ 414
I
McArdle adv. Sapp.

628 McCardle vs. Fogarty.

626 Irvin vs. Creditors of Bond...... 630 McCree vs. Mayor and Council

of Americus.......

411 J

McBryce & Co. ado. Snelling.. 513

McCroskey adv. Clark.... 137 Jackson adv. Walker.............. 413 McGehee vs. Jones et al ......... 123 Janes et al. adv. Johnson...... 596 McLendon adv. Thornton ...... 263 Jennings adv. Clarke ......... 182 McWilliams is. Walthall. ..... 422 Johnson vs. Janes et al ........... 596 Mercer & DeGraffenreid adv. Johnson vs. Yeomans & Strick- Walker & Co............

44 land

368 Meyers adv. Davis...... Johnson vs. Stewart et al ........ 549 Meyers et al. adv. Terry. 95 Jones adv. Cutcher........ 675 Miller adv. Jourdan.....

95

51 Jones vs. Payne et al.............. 23 Miller adv, Fricks.......

274 Jones vs. Payne.

32 Mitchell vs. the State of Ga..... 527 Jones adv. Pascbal........... 220 Mitchell & Co. adv. Walker & Jones et al. adv. McGehee...... 123 Chapman.

102 Jones adv. Cherry et al ........... 579 Mitchell et al. vs. the Mayor Jourdan vs. Miller......

51 and Council of Brunswick... 370

.........

295

......

[ocr errors]

Montgomery vs. Walker......... 681

s Moore, Trimble & Co. adv. Shorter

691 Sanders vs. McAffee et al........ 684 Morgan adv. Baldy & Tison..... 410 Sanford adv. Finney Morris rs. Morris....... 271 Sapp vs. McArdle....

628 Moti vs. Hall, Moses & Co...... 117 Scales vs. the Ordinary of ChatMurphy vs. Griggs ........ 464 tahoochee county:.

225 Schley ado. Gammell & Co...... 112 N

Schley et al. adv. Cunningham
et al....

426 Newton vs. Price.......... 186 Seay vs. Treadwell..

412 Sealy vs. Kuttner..

594 0 Sellars adv. Crim........

94 Shaw & Son vs. Gunn ..........

581 O'Bryne et al. vs. Mayor and Shorter vs. Moore, Trimble & Aldermen of Savannah........ 331 Co.......

691 Oliver adv. Windsor & Jowers 538 Simpson et al. vs. Wall........... 105 Orand, Paramore & Co. vs. Sims & Co. vs. Humber..... Walker

657 Smith et al. adv. Boatrite et al. 413 Orme et al. ado. Dart et al ...... 376 Smith & Looper vs. Byers et al 439 Owen vs. Willis .......

82 Snelling

McBryce & Co...... 513 Ozmore vs. Ozmore....

46 Snyder & Co. adv. Edmonston 60

Solomon ts. the Commission-
P

ers of Cartersville..... 157

Southerr. Railroad Co. adv. Parker et al. adv. Webb et al.. 478 Bryan..

71 Partee and wife adv. Lane et al. 202 Sparks vs. Maxwell and wife... 421 Paschal rs. Jones...... 220 Spires vs. Walker..........

200 Patterson adv. The Equitable

Statham vs. the State of Ga...... 507 Lite Assurance Society.....

338 Stewart et al. adv. Johnson...... 549 Paul ado. Hawes.....

609 | Stoddard adv. Gaulden .......... 329 Payne ado. Jones.......

32 Payne et al. adv. Jones.... 23

T Peacock et al. adr. Gay

84 Perry et al. vs. Gunby....... 415 Taliaferro vs. Pry......... 622 Peters and child vs. Peters et Tanner vs. Hollingsworth ........ 133 al

242 Taylor adv. Anderson ...... 10 Phinizy adv. Treadwell........ 63 Terry vs. Meyers et al ........... 95 Plant & Cubbedge vs. the Eu. The City Council of Albany faula Ins. Co......... 130 adv. Livingston.......

21 Pool & Luff burrow vs. Lewis.. 162 The Commissioners of CartersPowell adv. Leonard .......

598 ville adv. Solomon .............. 157 Price adv. Newton...... 186 The Equitable Life Assurance Pridgen vs. Duer.....

420
Society vs. Paterson......

338 Prior vs. the State of Georgia.. 155 The Eufaula Home Insurance Pry adv. Taliaferro.......... 622 Co. adv. Plant & Cubbedge.. 130

The Mayor and Council of
R

Brunswick adv. Mitchel et al 370

The Officers of Court vs. WilRagland vs. Barringer et al...... 114 kinson et al......

135 Rains vs. Dunning et al........... 617 The Ordinary of Chattahoochee Rankin et al. vs. Anderson et county adv. Scales .............. 225 al .........

419 The Southwestern Railroad Co. Reed & Co. adr. Brown ......... 604 adv. Bryan

71 Remley vs. De Wall....

466 The Southern Express Co. adv. Rhodes vs. the State of Ga..... 215 David. ......

223 Rives vs. Lawrence.

283 The Southern Express Co. adv. Rives us. Thompson..... 68 Green

515 | Rushin vs Gause..

180 The State of Ga. adv. Bell.... 589 Russell adv. Bartlett...... 196 The State of Ga. adv. Brightwell 824 Rutherford vs. Wright....... 128 The State of Ga. adv. Dillard.. 278

...........

[ocr errors]

The State of Ga. adv. Hill ...... 484 Walker & Chapman vs. Mitch-
Kitchens 217 ell & Co.........

102 6 Mitchell.. 527 | Walker is. Jackson.......

413 Prior ..... 155 Walker adv. Montgomery ... 681 Rhodes .. 215 Walker adr. Spires........ 200

Statham.. 507 Wall adv. Simpson et al ......... 105 Thompson adv. Rives......... 68 Wallace adr. Clayton & Co..... 268 Thornton et al. adv. Lamar..... 48 Walthall adv. McWilliams...... 422 Thornton vs. McLendon....... 263 Washington vs. Barnes..... 307 Tomlinson et al. vs. Hardwick Watson rs. Kemp......

586 et al..........

547 Webb & Co. adv. Edgerton, Tommey & Stewart vs. Ellis...... 260 Rogers & Hatch......

417 Turner adu. Vanover et al...... 577 Webb et al. vs. Parker et al ...... 478

Wells vs. Flowers.....

327 U

Whaley vs. Cunningham et al.. 3:20

Whipple adv. Howes...... 322 Underwood et al. adv. Briley White adv. Blow.......

293 et al.......... 9 Wilker adv. Hill....

449 Wilkinson et al. vs. the Officers V of Court

135 Willis adv. Owen ...........

82 Valentino adv. Clark & Grubb 143 Windsor & Jowers is. Oliver... 538 Vanover et al. vs. Turner........ 577 Winter rs. Mathews, Burke &

Cameron
W

Wright adv. Rutherford......... 128

..................

652

Y

Walker adv. Orand, Paramore & Co.........

657 Walker & Co. vs Waltball & DeGraffenreid

44

Yeomans & Strickland adt.
Johnson

868

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia,

AT ATLANTA,

JUNE TERM, 1870.

BERSHEBA BRILEY et al., plaintiff's in error, vs. ABNER F.

UNDERWOOD et al.

Equity from White.

When this cause was called in its order, A. S. Erwin and Hutchins and McMillan, who were represented by Hillyer & Brother, failed to furnish copies of the bill of exceptions, as required by the 12th Rule of Court, and the Court, ex suo mero motu, dismissed the cause.

The same disposition was made of S. S. Barnard, plaintiff in error vs. David McMurray, motion to set aside a judgment from Baker. J. E. Bower for plaintiff in error. In neither was there any appearance for the defendants.

VOL. XLI.-2.

Anderson rs. Taylor.

WILLIAM M. ANDERSON, administrator, plaintiff in error,

vs. THOMAS L. TAYLOR, trustee, defendant in error.

1. When the arbitrators failed to furnish the party who objects to the

award with a copy, as required by Section 4183 of the Revised Code, but the party appeared at the first term of the Court and filed his objections to the award, and did not show that he was taken by surprise, or lost any right by not having notice of the award, he is not injured by the failure of the arbitrators to furnish the copy, and the award will

not, on that ground, be set aside. 2. An award will not be set aside for uncertainty, when it is capable of

being made certain. 3. The award in this case is not so outrageous as of itself to constitute

conclusive evidence of fraud or corruption. Error in judgment in the arbitrators is not a sufficient ground for setting aside an award. Nor will it be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to evidence, if there

is any evidence to sustain it. 4. Arbitrations are favored by the Courts, and he who attempts to set

aside an award must comply strictly with the requirements of the

statutes, or he will not be heard. 5. The Court will not, by consent, transfer a cause to the end of

another Circuit, but will transfer it to the end of the entire docket, by consent. (R.) See note at the end of the Report.

Arbitration and Award. Certainty. Before Judge ALEXANDER. Pulaski Superior Court. October Term, 1869.

This case is bottomed upon the submission to arbitration of two actions of ejectment pending in said county. One was in favor of Thomas L. Taylor, as trustee for his wife, formerly Mary J. Pickett, against William M. Anderson, as administrator of William W. Mayo, for the north half of land lot number one hundred and eighty-four, the south half of number one hundred and eighty-five, all of numbers one hundred and ninety four, one hundred and ninety-five, a part of number one hundred and ninety-six, being a strip on the south-east side of the Hawkinsville road, containing in the aggregate four hundred and five acres, in the 12th district of said county. The other was by the same plaintiff against one Polhill, who held under said Mayo, for a portion of the same land. These suits were brought in March, 1863, in the lifetime of Mayo, and to each the general issue and statute of limitations were pleaded.

« 이전계속 »