TABLE OF CONTENTS. Abercrombie, et al. and Graham,et al.552 Borland v. Mayo...... ..491 | Bothwell, et al. v. Hamilton. et al. ...461 .948 Bowling v. Bowling, Ex'r, ..535 Alexander v. Alexander,...... 797 Boyd and Hayden, Alford & Mixon v. Colson, use, &c. 550 Boyd and Whitehurst, use, &C.......375 Alford v. Samuel, Allums, et al. v. Hawley, Anderson v. Dickson, Anderson v. Snow & Co. et al.. .504 Brooks & Lucas v. Godwin, .296 920 Brooks and Mead, use, &c. .840 Andrews & Co. and Riggs, .628 Brown and Woods' Adm'r,.... .563 Ansley and Carlos, use, &c.... 900 Brown and Woods' Adm'r,. .444 Buchanan & wife and Duffee, Ad'r, 27 Ansley v. Pearson, et al... 431 Buford and Wier, 625 Burden, Adm'r, and Treadwell, ...660 Auld and Wilson, Avery and Martin, .313 .909 Cahawba & M. R. R.Co.and Gayle, 586 Bagby, Gov. v. Chandler, et al.......230 Caldwell, ex dem. v. Thorp,... 253 Baker, Johnson & Co. and Hobson, 357 Caller v. Vivian, et al.,...... .903 Ball v. Bank of the State of Ala.....590 Calvert's Adm'r and Wilson,. .757 Bank Br. at Mobile and Blackman, 103 Carey, et al. v. Pratt, .238 .606 .655 622 725 ...605 Chandler, et al. and Bagby, Gov'r,...230 Bank, Br. at Mobile v. Hunt, et al. 876 Chandler and Eiland, Judge, .781 Bank of Mob. v. Sayre & Ledyard, 866 Chandler v. Hudson, use, &c., .366 Bank of Mobile v. P. & M. Bank,...772 Chandler f. Moore v. Lyon, et al.... .35 Bank of the State of Ala. and Ball,.590 Chaney, ex parte,..... Bank, P. & M. and Bank of Mobile, 772 Chappell and Lowther, et al. .353 Barclay and Spence,.... Barnett v. Gaines & Townsend,....373 Childs v. Crawford,. Bayles, et al. and Bradford,............865 Chilton, et al. and Hendricks f. wife,691 Beard y. The Br. Bank at Mobile,...344 Church, Cong'l, v. Morris..... .182 Bell & Casey v. Thomas,.... 527 Clapp, et al. v. Mock, et al.. 122 312 Clegge and Woodward, et al... .317 Blackman v. Br. Bank at Mobile,... 103 Cloud and Hargroves,.... .203 Clute & Mead and Hobson, ..357 .807 Coats, use, f-c. and Windham, et al. 285 Bolton & Stracener and Wright,....548 Cole g. Co. and Grant,.. Bond, heirs of, and Smith, ad’mr,....386 Cole, use, &c. v. Justice, Booth and Wife and Morris, .907 Colson, use,&-c. and Alford f- Mixon,550 ..942 Courtland v. Tarlton 8. Bullard,......532 Gooden & McKee v. Morrow & Co. 486 .767 Governor v. Chandler,........ .230 Craig, Adm'r, and Sorrell, .566 Governor, use, fc. v. Knight,.......297 Crawford v, Br. Bank of Mobile, .79 | Graham, et al. v. Abercrombie, et al. 552 Crawford and Lamkin, 171 Crenshaw v. Harrison, .519 .811 .767 Green & Elliott and Garner,..........96 .733 Greit et al and Doe ex dem. Pol. ..930 .625 .508 Doe ex dem. Chaudron v. Magee,...570 Hall and Turcutt, ..522 ...159 bile, Corporation of,.... .279 Hallett &Walker ex dem. y. Forest, 264 Doe ex dem. Hallett f Walker v. Hamilton, Adm’r. and Bothwellct al.461 .264 Hampton and Shehan, ..... Doe ex dem. Kennedy v. Bebee,......909 Hampton et al and Walker,.. .412 .685 Doremus, Suydam & Co. v. Walker, 194 Harris and Fitzpatrick, Adm'r,. .32 342 Duffee, Adm'r, v. Buchanan & wife, 27 Hayne and Drew, .438 .584 ..508 Herndon and Mabry, Giller f. Evans, Adm'r, v. Mathews.............99 Hill and Martin, Adm'r, Evans, use, &c. v. Stevens, et al. ...517 Hines and Garey,.... .837 .424 Hobson v. Baker Johnson & Co.....357 ..490 | Hobson v. Clute g- Mead, Farmer's Heirs, ex dem. v. Corpora Hodges v. The State, .55 Fitzpatrick, Adm'r, v. Harrie, 32 Holley et al. and Hollinger et al. ...454 .620 Hollinger & wife v. Br. B'k Mobile, 605 Forest, et al. and Doe ex dem Hal. Hollinger et al. v. Holly et al. .454 .264 Hooks of Wright v.Br. B’k Mobile,.580 Foster et al. and Magee, 320 Hopper, Garnishee. v. Todd, .121 73 .81 .846 736 .791 | Hudson, use, doc. and Chandler,....366 ..87 625 Huggins and Treasurer of Mobile, .440 .837 Hughes et al. v. Garrett et al. .....483 Garner v. Green and Elliott,...... ...96 Hunt et al. and Br. B'k at Mobile,..876 Garrett, et al and Hughes, et al....483 Hunt y. Test,.... Gayle v.Cahawba & M. R. R. Co....586 | Ivey and Mooney, use, &C.... ...810 Gewen and Leiper, .326 Johnson and Duckworth,.. .309 George v. Cahawba f. M. R. R. Co..234 Johnson v. Gaines, .620 Johnson v. Williams et al. .529 Gilmer v. Wier, .262 Givens and Marriott f. Hardesty, ...694 Jones and McLendon,. Godwin and Brooks of Lucas, .29 Jones et al. v. Tomlinson, .565 Julian et al. v. Reynolds, et al. .680 | Mooney, use, f:c. v. Ivey, .810 .328 Keenan et al. and Strange et al... ..816 Montgomery and Hall,... Kennedy et al. v. Bebee et al... .909 Morehouse and Smoot of Easton.....370 .907 ..44 Morris and Congl Church,.. Kent's Ex.and Simington, use, &c. 691 Morrison v. Spears.... Kirksev v. Kirksey,... .131 Morrowff Co.and Gooden & McKee,486 Kirksey et al. v. Mitchell, 204 Morrow & Nelson v.Weaver & Frow,288 Kissam & Co.and Hobson,.. .357 Morphy and Br. Bank at Mobile, ..119 Knight and The Governor, use, &c. 297 Murphy v. Paul,..... ..357 .743 Nitcher and Caskey et al.. Lattimore y. Williams et al. 428 O'Brien f. Divine v. Lewis... .....664 Leach v. Williams et al............ .759 Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co.v. Ledyard, 866 Ledvard and Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co.866 O'Neil, Michaux & Thomas v. 632 Palmer v. Severance & Stewart Lewis and O'Brien f. Divine, 666 | Parks y. Stunum Lockhard v. Avery & Speed,.. .502 Parmlee and Sheffield f. Co. .889 Lockwood et al and Pond, ..669 | Pcake v. Stout, Ingoldsby & Co...647 .44 | Pearson et al. and Ansley... 430 Lowrie v. Stewart, .163 Pollard's Heirs ex dem. v. Greit et al. 930 .827 Mabry, Giller d. Walker v. Herndon,818 Powell and Wright Magee v. Fisher et al........... .320 Pratt and Casey et al. .238 .846 Mark et al.and Clappet al.... ..122 Rail R., Cahawba & M. and Gayle, 586 Manning v. Manning et al. 138 Rail R., Cahawba & M. and George,234 ..694 | Rail Road, Tuscumbia, v. Rhodes, .206 Marshall, a slave, and the State,....302 Randolph v. Carlton Martin Adm'r v. Hill,... .490 .430 Reynolds and Hogan & Co...... .59 .807 Reynolds et al. and Julian ... .680 ..167 Riggs v. Andrews & Co....... 628 Mathews and Evans, Adm'r,.........99 Rhodes and Tuscumbia Rail Road, 206 ..314 ...104 Rouse and Mayor, &c. of Mobile, · 515 ..171 ..95 .86 Sayre ft. Ledyard and B’k of Mobile, 866 .827 Scroggins v. McDougald et al........381 McLemore et al. v. McLemore's A1.687 Seamans et al. v. White .... 656 McLendon v. Jones, .298 Secor & Brooks v. Woodward ..500 677 Severance f. Stewart and Palmer....53 942 Mitchell's Dis. v. Mitchell's Adm'r, 414 Shrader v. Walker, Adm'r,...... .244 Mitchell and Kirksey et al... ..402 Simington, use, &c. v. Kent's Ex.... 691 Mobile Corporation of, and Doe ex Simmons and Trammel Mobile, Treas'r of v. Huggins, .440 Skinner v. Frierson & Crow .915 Mobile, Corporatlon v. Rouse, .515 Smith, Adm'r, v. Heirs of Bond.. .386 .203 ..73 Smoot Easton v. Morehouse .370, Travis y. Tartt .655 Treadwell, Guar. v. Burden, Adm'r 660 Snow & Co. et al. and Anderson. .504 Treasurer of Mobile v. Huggins,... .440 Sorrell v. Craig, Adm'r... Spann and Strawbridge. .93 Turnipseed and Walker et al.......... 679 .581 Turnipseed v. Crook, Adm'r .897 333 Tuscumbia R. R. Co. v. Rhodes......206 .333 Vance v. Wells & Co........ .399 313 Vivian et al. and Caller..... ..903 .273 Walker, Adm'r, et al. v. Shrader...244 .159 Walker v. Hampton et al...... 412 State and Hodges .951 Walker and Doremus, Suydam & Co.194 State v. Marshall, a slave... .302 Walker et al. v. Turnipseed..........679 State v. Mooney State and Tuck... Steele v. Agee Stevens et al. and Evans, use, &c. 517 Watson and Wife v. May. .177 Stewart and Lowrie 395 | Weaver & Frow and Morrow&Nelson 288 Stonum and Parks...... Stout, Ingoldsby & Co. and Peake...647 | White and Seaman et al..... ..656 Strange et al. v. Keenan et al. ..... 816 Whitehurst, use, &c. v. Boyd.. ..375 .820 Whitsett v. Womack, use, &C.. .466 635 Whittlesey and Crawford... 806 Tait, use, &c. Frow Tankersley v. J. & A. Graham .247 Wier and Gilmer. Tarlton g. Bullard and Courtland, 532 Williams et al. and Lattimore... .574 Williams, sheriff, et al. and Johnson, 529 Tarver and Knotts.. ...743 Williams et al. and Leach........ ...48 .843 .757 Thomas and Bell g. Casey.... ..527 Wilson v. Jones .... Thompson and McBride and wife, 650 Windham et al. v. Coates, use, &c..285 Thorp and Doe ex dem. Caldwell and Womack, use, &c. v. Whitsett. .466 .252 Woods' Adm'r y. Brown...... .563 745 Woods' Adm'r v. Brown..... .742 ..677 | Woodward et al. v. Clegge, .317 121 Woodward and Secor & Brooks ...... .500 Tomlinson and Jones et al .565 Wright v. Bolton & Stracener.........548 .560 ... 759 1. A deed of trust operative as a security for the payment of money, is not fraudulent per se, on account of the reservation of uses to the grantor. 2. Quere? Whether a deed conveying property for the benefit of sureties, and fixing the law day of the deed to a time subsequent to the maturity of the debts, for which the sureties are bound, is operative as a conveyance, without the assent of the sureties. 3. So far as the particular creditor is concerned, the debtor, with his assent may stipulate that the effects conveyed may be continued, in trade or planting, for a definite or indefinite period, but such a stipulation cannot prevent any other creditor from his right to sell the resulting trust of the debtor, in satisfaction of his execution. 4. Quere? Whether a debtor, by the mortgage of his perishable personal es tate, for the security of one creditor, can prevent others from reducing that estate to money, and thus to determine the risk there always is, of its des truction or deterioration in value. 5. The powers of a Court of Equity are sufficient to prevent injury to the mortgage creditor, as well as injustice to the one who has no security. 6. Assuming that a deed of trust conveying property as a security, for the benefit of sureties, and reserving the use of perishable effects, which may be consumed in the use, has been made operative by the assent of the beneficiaries, yet no other creditor is bound by the contract between those parties. His right is to have all the debtor's estate reduced, at once, to its money value, and if the secured creditors choose to become the purchasers, and thus continue their relation with the debtor, a Court of Equity is com petent to let them in to the extent of their debts. 7. In claims interposed under the statute, to property which is levied on as belonging to the defendant in execution, the bond required to be given may |