Page images
PDF
EPUB

ship of the remainder of his estate to another, | identified as the same taken at his examina-
does not constitute a case in which the lega-
tees are charged to preserve for, or to return
a thing to, a third person, and does not contain
a prohibited substitution and fidei commis-
sum, under Rev. Civil Code La. arts. 520, 522.
-Succession of Buissiere, (La.) 668.

tion by that body, the signature to which he
recognizes as his own, for the purpose of re-
freshing his recollection, and from it he may
fix the date, though he has no recollection of
the date.-Billingslea v. State, (Ala.) 137.*

6. Plaintiff, in an action to recover damages
for shooting him, rested after having shown
the fact of the shooting and his injuries, and
defendant then introduced evidence to jus-
"tify his action. Held, that the exclusion of
the testimony of a witness for plaintiff as to
the commencement of the affair leading up to
the shooting, on the ground that such testi-
mony was not in rebuttal, was error.-Moseley
v. Jamison, (Miss.) 524.

10. A testator devised to his wife property
for life, or until she married, with remainder
to her children. Also gave her $2,500 "dur-
ing her natural life, or until she may marry,
and $2,500 to be used by her "in the support
and education of her children," and made his
two nieces residuary legatees. Held, that
the wife had a general power of distribution
of the money left for the support and educa-
tion of the children, under which she could
disburse the whole fund, if necessary for
those purposes, and that on her death or mar-
riage the balance did not descend to the re-
siduary legatees, but remained for the use of
the children.-Adams v. Mason, (Ala.) 219.

WITNESS.

See, also, Deposition; Evidence.
Competency-Attorney.

1. Defendant was arrested for attempting
to obtain money on false pretenses from a
railroad company. It was alleged that he
sought to obtain damages for two trunks,
which he falsely claimed had been lost by the
company. Held, that the attorney of defend-
ant was properly required to testify as to his
employment by defendant to demand compen-
sation from the company.- White v. State,
(Ala.) 674.

Divorced wife.

2. A divorced wife is competent to testify
as to matters which have occurred after the
divorce.-Long v. State, (Ala.) 443.

7. A witness having stated on re-examina-
tion that a hog killed and cleaned at the house
of the alleged thief was the stolen hog, was
properly asked on cross-examination, as to
how he knew it was the stolen hog.-Tate v.
State, (Ala.) 575.

8. Where a witness, in cross-examination, is
questioned as to collateral and irrelevant mat-
ter, he cannot be contradicted in rebuttal as
to such matter.-Garmon v. State, (Miss.) 385.
Credibility.

9. The law raises no presumption as to
whether or not a witness under oath speaks
the truth. Rowland v. Plummer, 50 Ala. 182,
overruled.-Stix v. Keith, (Ala.) 184.

Impeachment.

10. It is incompetent, on direct examina-
tion, in seeking to impeach a witness to re-
strict the inquiries merely as to his character
for honesty.-Davenport v. State, (Ala.) 152.

11. The testimony of a witness taken before
the magistrate on the preliminary investiga-
tion having been reduced to writing, the court
did not err in refusing to allow him to be
cross-examined as to extracts taken from the
writing, with a view to impeaching him, but
properly required that the entire writing
should be read to the jury.-Kennedy v. State,
(Ala.) 300.*

12. Such writing was not to be treated as
original evidence, nor to be received for any
other purpose than that of contradicting or
impeaching the witness.-Id.

Transactions with decedents.
3. The title of defendant in ejectment,
claiming under a warranty deed, was assailed
because plaintiffs' decedent claimed to have
acquired a lien on the premises in contro-
versy before the deed was recorded, he not
having notice of the conveyance from a
change of possession or otherwise. Held, that
13. Where the scrivener who drew a paper
the grantor of the defendant not being liable has testified that he intended to write a will,
on his covenant of warranty in case the de- though the evidence, if properly objected to,
fendant should lose the suit, was competent would have been rejected for incompetency,
to testify that after his conveyance to de- it is proper to permit the contestant to give
fendant, and before the plaintiffs' decedent in evidence a letter in which the witness
had acquired his alleged lien, he had in-stated that the alleged testator died intestate,
formed the latter of such conveyance.-Fitz-
gerald v. Williamson, (Ala.) 309.

4. The vendor of land, who transferred to
complainant the purchase-money notes in
suit, having died, the testimony of defend
ant, the vendee, as to transactions and state-
ments between himself and the deceased
vendor, in regard to the sale, is incompetent,
in Alabama, and properly excluded.-Hodges
v. Denny, (Ala) 492.

Examination.

5. A witness whose recollection has failed
him as to the date of an offense as to which he
had testified before the grand jury, may ex-
amine a written memorandum of his evidence,

for the purpose of impeaching him.-Sharp v.
Hall, (Ala.) 497.

14. A party may ask his witness if he has
not made statements inconsistent with his
testimony, provided the question is not for
the sole purpose of impeachment.-White v.
State, (Ala.) S29.*

testified, defendant examined W. as his own;
15. After W., a witness for the state, had
her testimony being used to impeach H., an-
other state witness. On the argument de
fendant's counsel, comparing the weight of
the testimony of these two witnesses, stated
that defendant had impeached H., but that
the state had not even attempted to impeach
W. Held, that the solicitor was properly al

lowed to reply that, as a matter of law, he | tion, or by an appearance putting at issue
could not impeach W., as she was his own
witness.-Id.

WRITS.

See, also, Attachment; Execution; Injunc-
tion; Mandamus; Prohibition, Writ of;
Quo Warranto; Replevin.
Service on corporation.

some matter presented by the petition, the
object of which is intended to be detrimental
to the proceeding or to the action.-Id.
Objections to service-When made.

3. An objection to the effect of a citation,
and to its sufficiency to bring an absentee into
court as a garnishee in an attachment suit, is
substantially an exception to the jurisdiction
of the court ratione persona, and, to be avail-
1. Service of a petition and citation ad-ing, it must be formally presented in liminė,
dressed to a corporation is fatally defective, and by way of exception, and must be passed
and bad, when made on one who is not a legal upon by the court, or the objection will be
representative of such corporation authorized considered to have been waived.-Gomilla v.
to receive legal process.-Collier v. Morgan's Milliken, (La.) 548.
L. & T. R. Co., (La.) 537.
Waiver of service.

Wrongful Attachment.

2. A citation and service cannot be consid-
ered as waived, unless by a formal renuncia-See Attachment, 3-5.

TABLES OF SOUTHERN CASES

IN

STATE REPORTS.

We herewith furnish tables of all those cases which, originally published in the SOUTHERN REPORTER, have since appeared in the various State Reports. Reference is made in each case to the volume and page of both the State Report and the SOUTHERN REPORTER. Similar tables will be made and issued hereafter. The advantage of such tables, both for purposes of reference and citation, is obvious, much increasing the permanent value of the series.

VOL. 80, ALABAMA REPORTS.

NOTE. The SOUTHERN REPORTER, which did not begin publication until February 2, 1887, includes only the following cases from volume 80, Alabama Reports:]

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

VOL. 81, ALABAMA REPORTS.

[NOTE. The following cases, filed before the beginning of the Southern Reporter, (February 2, 1887,) and published in volume 81, Alabama, are not reported in the SOUTHERN REPORTER: Booker v. Waller; Boyle v. Wallace; Brent v. Miller; Bynum v. Frederick: Coffey v. Norwood; Commercial Fire Ins. Co. v. Capital City Ins. Co.; Cowan v. Sapp; Dickey v. Vann; Edwards v. Rogers; Eureka Co. v. Bass; Goodloe v. Dean; Jordan v. Alabama G. S. R. Co.; King v. State; Malone v. Handley; McLaren v. Anderson; McPherson v. Foust; Moore v. Alexander; Sparkman v. Swift; White v. Farley; Wilkinson v. King.]

[blocks in formation]

Burroughs v. Pacific Guano Co. (1 So. 212) 255
Butler v. Gazzam (1 So. 16)..

Cameron, Ex parte (1 So. 20)..........

Camp v. Randle (2 So. 287)..

[blocks in formation]

460)

491 Lehman v. Rogers (1 So. 703).

Lilley v. Fletcher (1 So. 273)..

87 Long v. Parmer (1 So. 900)...
240

476 Markland v. Albes (2 So. 123).
259 Matthews v. State (1 So. 43)..
411 McCord v. Tennille (1 So. 177).
521 McDonald v. State (2 So. 829)

McMullen v. Brazelton (1 So. 778)
140 Meadows v. Meadows (1 So. 29)
574 Medlin v. Wilkerson (1 So. 37).

Merchants' & Mechanics' Bank v. Coleman (1 So. 123)..

123

363

234

884

453

66

168

279

442

.... 451

147

61

170

Doe v. Clayton (2 So. 24)..

[blocks in formation]

Dolan v. State (1 So. 707).

[blocks in formation]

Dossey v. Pitman (2 So. 443).

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »