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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2. A citation and service cannot be consid- ered as waived, unless by a formal renuncia-See Attachment, 3-5.
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:]
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.]
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)..
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)..
Doe v. Clayton (2 So. 24)..
Dolan v. State (1 So. 707).
Dossey v. Pitman (2 So. 443).
« PreviousContinue » |