ed by the 11th section of the Act of 1856. Moody vs.
The fraudulent organization of a Bank cannot be set up
as a defence against the payment of an acceptance.
The Southern Bank of Georgia vs. Williams.
See Criminal Law, 35.
See Arbitration and Award, 3.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES.
1. A promissory note, on the face of it joint and several,
but signed by but one maker, who puts it in circulation,
is good against him. Dickerson vs. Burke.
2. It is to be presumed that a note transferred, was
transferred before due, and that the holder is a bona
fide holder for value, and in such case, the note itself is
evidence of no notice of a defence except such as may
appear on the face of it. Id.
3. The holder is not bound to prove that he gave value
for it, unless it be first established that the note was lost
or stolen.
4. A. and B. give their note payable to C., for the hire of
a negro for a particular year. The negro having been
previously hired to another person, the note is returned
to B., who, for a consideration, re-issues it to D.
Held, That the original note having become functus
upon its re-delivery to one of the makers, on account of
the failure of consideration, could not be re-issued by
B., especially to one who had a knowledge of all the
facts. Mickelberry & Mobley vs. Shannon, admʼr.
237
5. In a suit on a promissory note, slight evidence that
title to the note is in the plaintiff, will be sufficient to
prevent a nonsuit. Stamper, et al., vs. Hays.
6. A receipt of payment, though not obtained fraudu-
lently, yet, if obtained by mistake, or without consid-
eration, does not bind. Id.
7. A purchaser, even with notice, from a purchaser
without notice, is equally protected with the latter. Id.
8. If there are equities against a negotiable note, it is to be
presumed that the transferree of it had notice of them,
provided he became such transferree, when the note
was overdue. Williams & Co., vs. Nicholson.
9. Where A. obtains advances from a bank to buy cotton,
and it is understood that payment is to be made by giv-
ing drafts on the cotton, on the factors to whom it was
to be forwarded:
Held, that the factors having failed, a tender of drafts
upon said house, is no discharge of the original liabili-
ty. Johnson & Co., vs. The Mechanics and Savings
Bank
1. A person who sells land, receives notes for the pur-
chase money, and gives a bond to make a title when
the money is paid, on the death of the purchaser insol-
vent, is entitled to have the land sold and the proceeds
applied to the payment of his debt, and the excess alone
can be claimed by the creditors. Strickland, adm'r, vs.
Dent,
2. The vendor, in such case, cannot claim a ratable pro-
portion of his debt estimated at the full amount, from
the general assets of the estate, and then claim the land,
as not having been paid for. The debt of which he
has a right to claim a ratable payment, is the balance
remaining after crediting the amount for which the land
may have been sold. Id.
BRIDGE, FRANCHISE OF-AND WHEN IN-
FRINGED, &c.
The Legislature, in 1806, authorized Joseph Hill to erect
a toll bridge across the Great Ogechee, at a particular
place; and the Act provides that it shall not be lawful
for any one to erect any other bridge within five miles
above or below. The toll bridge was built, and has
been kept up ever since. In 1847 & 1851, the Legisla-
ture authorized the construction of a railway across
the same river, between Savannah and Albany, which
would necessarily cross near the first bridge, and which
was actually carried across, within a mile and a half
below the same;
Held, That the franchise granted to the Railroad Com-
pany was not the same as that conferred on the first
grantee, nor so similar as to be deemed an infringe-
ment upon the prior charter, in the sense in which a
new bridge or ferry interferes with one previously es-
tablished at the same point; and that no injunction
will be granted, nor compensation decreed, by way of
damages in such case. McDONALD, J. dissenting.
McLeod et al., vs. Savannah, Albany and Gulf Rail-
road Co.,
1. The notice of a party, that he intends to apply for a
writ of certiorari, to carry up to the Superior Court a
decision of the Inferior Court, need not be accompa-
nied, either by a copy of the bill of exceptions tender-
ed to and overruled by the Inferior Court, nor of the
petition for certiorari. Johnston vs. Martin et al,
2. A certiorari does not lie at the instance of the State
to the Superior Courts, to obtain a rehearing in the In-
ferior Courts, against a slave, who has been acquitted
for an alleged violation of the Acts of 1818, Cobb 992,
or of 1835, Cobb 1008. The State vs. Lavinia et al.,
(slaves,)
1. Charge to the jury that they might find according to
the weight of probability, that which ever way they be-
lieved the weight of probability to be, they might find,
is erroneous; the evidence should so preponderate in
favor of the party for whom the verdict is rendered, as
to satisfy the jury that he is entitled to it. Parker vs.
Johnson, adm'r,
2. P. sued M., and garnished A. & F., who answered,
that they had made to M., their negotiable promissory
note. This garnishment was served before the note
fell due. Afterwards C. sued A. & F., (the makers,) on
the note, who pleaded and proved the garnishment, the
judgment thereon, and payment of the judgment; and
asked the Court to charge the jury, that the onus was
on C. to show that he obtained the note, before the ser-
vice of the garnishment on them.
Held, That the Court erred in not so charging. French
& Aven vs. Campbell,
See Crim Law, 13, 22, 23.
1. It is not necessary to the validity of a claim of land at
executors or administrators sale, that bond and se-
curity should be given. Falls vs. Griffith adm'r,
2. A claim of a slave levied on to satisfy an execution
issued from a Justices Court must be returned to the
Superior or Inferior Court whichever may be first held.
Cottle vs. Dodson,
An executor of an executor is entitled to commissions
on pecuniary legacies paid out under the will of the
first testator-commissions to be retained out of the
fund due to the legatees; but he is not entitled to com-
missions from the estate of his immediate testator, on
the hypothesis that the amount was due as a debt from
his estate to the former estate, unless it appears that the
last testator claimed the fund adversely to the legatees,
under the first will. That the money and notes of the
two estates were so commingled, that they could not
be distinguished, makes no odds, if the deceased execu-
tor had charged himself with them, which he must be
presumed to have done, if the contrary does not ap-
pear. Jones ex'or, ex parte,
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS.
1. The Act of 5th March, 1856, establishing a Crim-
inal Court in the City of Atlanta, and authorizing a
|