Page images


Abercrombie, et al. and Graham,et al.552 Borland v. Mayo......


Acre and Taylor,....

..491 | Bothwell, et al. v. Hamilton. et al. ...461

Agee v. Steele,.....

.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,
.95 Bradford v. Bayles, et al.


Allums, et al. v. Hawley,
584 Bradford and Lewis,


Anderson v. Dickson,
.733 Broadnax v. Sims' Ex'r,....


Anderson v. Snow & Co. et al.. .504 Brooks & Lucas v. Godwin, .296

Andrews & Bros. v. McCoy,

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,.


Ansley v. Mock,!

.444 Buchanan & wife and Duffee, Ad'r, 27

Ansley v. Pearson, et al... 431 Buford and Wier,


Armstrong v. Tait,

625 Burden, Adm'r, and Treadwell, ...660

Auld and Wilson,
..812 Burnett v. Handley,


Avery and Martin,
.430 Burns and The State,...

Avery & Speed, &c.and Lockhard, 502 Butler and Wife v. Merch'ts Ins. Co. 146
Bebee, et al. and Doe ex dem. Ken. Cahawba f. M.R.R.Co.and George,234

.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,

Bank, Br. Mobile and Crawford,.. .79 Carleton and Randolph,

Bank, Br. at Mobile v. Murphy, ..119 Carlos, use, &c. v. Ansley, .900
Bank, Br. at Mobile and Beard, .314 Carnes and Snedicor,

Bank, Br. Mob.and Hooks & Wright,580 Caskey, et al. v. Nitcher,

Bank, Br. Mobile and Hollinger & Cathcart and Fant,.


...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,....
581 Chaudron, ex dem. v. Magee,


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

Bell v. Owen, ...

312 Clegge and Woodward, et al... .317

Blackman v. Br. Bank at Mobile,... 103 Cloud and Hargroves,....


Blackmaa v. Smith,

.203 Clute & Mead and Hobson, ..357

Bogan v. Martin,.....

.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

Boring and Huffaker,
.87 | Couper and Graves,..,



Courtland v. Tarlton 8. Bullard,......532 Gooden & McKee v. Morrow & Co. 486

Crafts y. Dexter,

.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 Childs,

731 Graham y. Lockhart,


Crawford and Lamkin,
.153 Graham v. Ruff,


Crawford v. Whittlesey,

.806 Graham and Tankersley,


Crenshaw v. Harrison,
.342 Grant v.Cole & Co.....

Crook, Adm'r, et al. v. Turnipseed,.897 Graves v. Cooper,...

Dexter and Crafts,

.767 Green & Elliott and Garner,..........96
Dickson and Anderson,

.733 Greit et al and Doe ex dem. Pol.
Dickson, use, &c. and Dobson.......252 lard's Heirs,

Dobson, et al. v. Dickson, use, &c.,. 252 Griffin v. Ganaway,

Doe ex dem Caldwell and Wife v. Hall and Elliott,



.253 Hall v. Montgomery,


Doe ex dem. Chaudron v. Magee,...570 Hall and Turcutt,

Doe ex dem. Farmer's Heirs v. Mo Hallett and The State,..


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
Doe ex dem. Pollard's Heirs y. Greit, Handley and Burnett,


et al.

.930 Hargroves v. Cloud,


Doremus, Suydam & Co. v. Walker, 194 Harris and Fitzpatrick, Adm'r,. .32
Drew v. Hayne,
-438 Harrison and Crenshaw,


Duckworth v. Johnson,

309 Hayden v. Boyd,..


Duffee, Adm'r, v. Buchanan & wife, 27 Hayne and Drew,

Dunn v. Dunn,
784 Hawley and Allums et al.

Eiland, Judge, v. Chandler, 781 Hendricks f. Wife v. Chilton et al. 641
Elliott v. Hall,

..508 Herndon and Mabry, Giller f.

Ellison v. The State,....




Evans, Adm'r, v. Mathews.............99 Hill and Martin, Adm'r,


Evans, use, &c. v. Stevens, et al. ...517 Hines and Garey,....


Ex parte Chaney,

.424 Hobson v. Baker Johnson & Co.....357

Ex parte Renfro, .

..490 | Hobson v. Clute g- Mead,


Fant v. Cathcart,..

..725 Hobson v. Kissam,


Farmer's Heirs, ex dem. v. Corpora Hodges v. The State,


tion of Mobile,

279 Hogan & Co. v. Reynolds,


Fitzpatrick, Adm'r, v. Harrie, 32 Holley et al. and Hollinger et al. ...454

Flanagan v. Gilchrist,..

.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

lett & Walker,.......

.264 Hooks of Wright v.Br. B’k Mobile,.580

Foster et al. and Magee,

320 Hopper, Garnishee. v. Todd, .121
Foster and Mixon,
.357 Horton v. Smith,

Frazier and Houston.....
..81 Houston v. Frazier,

Frierson & Crow and Skinner, ..915 Houston v. Prewitt,.

Frow and Tait. use, &c.,... .543 Houston and Smith,

Gaines and Johnson,

.791 | Hudson, use, doc. and Chandler,....366
Gaines & Townsend and Barnett,...373 Huffaker v. Boring,.......

Ganaway v. Griffin,

625 Huggins and Treasurer of Mobile, .440

Garey v. Hines,

.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,


Gilchrist and Flanagan,

.620 Johnson v. Williams et al. .529

Gilmer v. Wier,
.72 Jones v. Jones,


Givens and Marriott f. Hardesty, ...694 Jones and McLendon,.


Givens v. Tidmore,

.745 Jones and Wilson,....


Godwin and Brooks of Lucas, .29 Jones et al. v. Tomlinson,


Julian et al. v. Reynolds, et al. .680 | Mooney, use, f:c. v. Ivey, .810
Justice and Cole, use, &c. .793 Mooney v. The State....


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
Kennedy and Kennedy's Adm'r, .391 Morris v. Booth and Wife


Kent v. Long.....

..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,.....


Knotts v. Tarver,......

.743 Nitcher and Caskey et al..


Kreps and The State,

.951 Nixon v. Foster


Lamkin v.Crawford,

.143 Norman v. Malett....


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.

Leiper v. Gewen,


Teague ..


Lewen and Stone et al...

395 Owen and Bell..


Lewis v. Bradford,

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

Lockhart and Graham,...

.9 Paul and Murphy.....


Lockwood et al and Pond, ..669 | Pcake v. Stout, Ingoldsby & Co...647

Long and Kent,.....

.44 | Pearson et al. and Ansley... 430

Lowrie v. Stewart,

.163 Pollard's Heirs ex dem. v. Greit et al. 930
Lowther et al. v. Chappell, . .353 Pond et al. v. Lockwood et al........669
Lyon et al. and Chandler & Moore,..35 Powell and McGehee


Mabry, Giller d. Walker v. Herndon,818 Powell and Wright


Magee v. Fisher et al........... .320 Pratt and Casey et al.

Magee and Doc ex dem. Chaudron, 570 Prewitt and Houston.


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
Marriott & Hardesty v. Givens,

..694 | Rail Road, Tuscumbia, v. Rhodes, .206

Marshall, a slave, and the State,....302 Randolph v. Carlton


Martin Adm'r v. Hill,...
.43 Renfro, Ex parte,.......

Martin v. Avery,

.430 Reynolds and Hogan & Co...... .59
Martin and Bogan,

.807 Reynolds et al. and Julian ... .680

Massey v. Walker,

..167 Riggs v. Andrews & Co....... 628

Mathews and Evans, Adm'r,.........99 Rhodes and Tuscumbia Rail Road, 206
May and Watson and Wife,... ...177 | Roundtree v. Weaver

Mayo and Borland,

...104 Rouse and Mayor, &c. of Mobile, · 515
McBride and Wife v. Thpmpson, ..650 Ruff and Graham....

McCoy and Andrews & Bros. .920 Samuel and Alford...

McDougald et al. and Scroggins, ...382 Sankey's Ex. v. Sankey's Dis........601
McGehee v. McGehee,..

.86 Sayre ft. Ledyard and B’k of Mobile, 866
McGehee v. Powell,

.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
McRae and Tilman et al.

677 Severance f. Stewart and Palmer....53
Mead, use, &c. y. Brooks ..840 Sheffield & Co. v. Parmlee...... ..889
Mer. Ins. Co. and Butler and Wife, 146 Shehan v. Hampton


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


dem. Farmer's Heirs,.

279 Sims' Ex. and Broadnax.


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
Mock and Ansley....
..444 Smith and Blackman

Mock, et al. and Clapp, et al. .122 Smith and Horton...


Molett and Norman,

.546 | Smith v. Houston...


Smoot Easton v. Morehouse .370, Travis y. Tartt


Snedicor v. Carnes

.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...
566 Turcott v. Hall


Spann and Strawbridge.
.820 Turk v. The State.


Spears and Morrison

.93 Turnipseed and Walker et al.......... 679

Spence v. Barclay

.581 Turnipseed v. Crook, Adm'r .897

Spence and Spyker.

333 Tuscumbia R. R. Co. v. Rhodes......206

spyker v. Spence.....

.333 Vance v. Wells & Co........ .399

state v. Burns ..

313 Vivian et al. and Caller..... ..903

State and Ellison..

.273 Walker, Adm'r, et al. v. Shrader...244

State v. Hallett

.159 Walker v. Hampton et al...... 412

State and Hodges
...55 Walker and Massey......


State v. Kreps

.951 Walker and Doremus, Suydam & Co.194

State v. Marshall, a slave... .302 Walker et al. v. Turnipseed..........679

State v. Mooney
.328 Walker y. Watrous ..


State and Tuck...
664 Wall y. Williamson...


Steele v. Agee
.948 Watrous and Walker.


Stevens et al. and Evans, use, &c. 517 Watson and Wife v. May. .177

Stewart and Lowrie
.163 Weaver and Roundtree....


Stone et al. v. Lewin.....

395 | Weaver & Frow and Morrow&Nelson 288

Stonum and Parks......
752 Wells & Co. v. Vance......


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

Strawbridge v. Spann...

.820 Whitsett v. Womack, use, &C.. .466

Tait and Armstrong

635 Whittlesey and Crawford... 806

Tait, use, &c. Frow
543 Wier and Buford


Tankersley v. J. & A. Graham .247 Wier and Gilmer.


Tarlton g. Bullard and Courtland, 532 Williams et al. and Lattimore...


Tartt and Travis........

.574 Williams, sheriff, et al. and Johnson, 529

Tarver and Knotts..

...743 Williams et al. and Leach........
Taylor v. Acre
..491 Williamson and Wall

Teague & Teague v. O'Neil et al....345 Wilson v. Auld........

Test and Hunt...
.713 Wilson v. Calvert, Adm'r,


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

Tidmore and Givens ....

745 Woods' Adm'r v. Brown..... .742

Tilman et al. v. McRae

..677 | Woodward et al. v. Clegge, .317

Todd and Hopper, Garnishee

121 Woodward and Secor & Brooks ...... .500

Tomlinson and Jones et al .565 Wright v. Bolton & Stracener.........548
Trammel v. Simmons.... ..274' Wright v. Powell .........


... 759

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

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

« PreviousContinue »