DOWER.

I. Husband died in December, 1803, having been entitled to a section of land, under the act of Congress of the 3d of March 1803, as a donation claim, which was recognized by a certificate to his heirs and legal representatives, by the board of commissioners on the 11th June 1806, and a patent issuing to the same persons in July 1819; the surviving widow of said deceased husband is entitled to dower in said land.— Hackler's heirs vs. Cabel,

II. Dower may be claimed in lands for which a certificate only has issued; and a sale on execution does not divest the wife's right to dower. Fleeson vs. Nicholson,

PAGE

91

217

III. A woman married and domiciled in Louisiana, is, nevertheless, on the death of her husband, entitled to dower in real and personal estate situate here, according to the laws of this state. Duncan vs. Dick,

288

IV. A widow is endowable of an equity of redemption. Rutherford vs. Munce et al.,

370

V. On a petition for dower out of several tracts, sold by the hasband in his life time, without the relinquishment of the wife, the entire portion of the wife ought not to be assigned out of one of said tracts. Cook vs. Fisk,

DRAWER.

See PROMISSORY NOTES, IV, V.

4:3

EJECTMENTS.

I. The plaintiff must recover in ejectment upon the strength of his own title, and upon a legal not an equitable title. Winn vs. Cole's heirs, .

II. At the common law, an heir could not recover on a demise laid in his name during the life time of the ancestor, because the heir had not then the right of possession; but after issue joined, this defect is cured by our statute of Jeofails. Ibid,

119

119

ENDORSER.

I. The Bank of the State of Mississippi cannot proceed by notice against an endorser of a note made payable at one of its offices of discount and deposit. Bank vs. Bush,

See PROMISSORY NOTES, III, IV, V.

❝ WITNESS, VI.

EQUITY.

I. If the equity of complainant and defendant be equal, the courts of chancery will not interfere. See Administrator of Lee vs. Montgomery,

II. A party endeavoring to perpetrate a fraud, cannot succeed in a court of equity against a particeps criminis; but a party making a deed with the view to bar certain suppositious rights of his wife, does not commit such an act as will prevent relief, against a party endeavoring to pervert the deed to fraudulent purposes. Dismukes vs. Terry,

See SABE, I, II.

EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.

See OBLIGOR, I, II.

ERASURE.

ESCHEATOR GENERAL.

I. An administrator of a deceased person, dying here without heirs, cannot, by injunction, restrain the Escheator General from collecting the property of the deceased. Bolls vs. Duncan,

II. A creditor of such deceased person, must proceed against the
Escheator General.

Ibid.,

EVIDENCE.

I. Transcript of judgment obtained in Louisiana, upon proceeding
by attachment, without service of process upon defendant,
not admissible as presumptive evidence, in an action found-
ed upon such judgment. Chew & Relf vs. Randolph,
See Note of Reporter,

PAGE

265

109

197

161

161

6

II. Prosecutor is a competent witness, though liable for costs. The
State vs. Blennerhassetts,

III. Two persons tried jointly for the same offence, the one is not
a good witness for the other, unless no proof of guilt is of-
fered against him. Ibid.,

VI. Notice of protest may be proved without producing the writ-
ten notice Offut vs. Vick, Exec'r of Vick,

V. When the facts stated in complainant's bill are denied in the
defendant's answer, they must be proved by two credible
witnesses, or one witness and strong corroborating circum-
stances. See Adm'r of Lee vs. Montgomery,

VI. Parol evidence is not admissible to show a mistake in the quan-
tity of acres mentioned in a deed, where no fraud is proved.
Kerr, Adm'r vs. Calvit,

PAGE

7-15

7-17

99

109

115

VII. A different consideration from that stated in a deed cannot be
proved by parol evidence. Ibid.,

115

VIII. A promissory note endorsed specially, cannot be given in
evidence, to support an action in the name of the original
payee. Smith, use &c. vs. Runnels,

IX. A resulting trust may be proved by parol, in opposition to the
deed, and to the answer denying the deed. Dismukes vs.
Terry,

X. As a general rule, on an appeal from the decree of the Chan-
cellor to the Supreme Court, newly discovered evidence can
not be admitted. Hoggatt's Adm'r vs. Hunter's Exec'rs,
XI. A plaintiff cannot be a witness to sustain his account, by his
own book of accounts. West vs. Poindexter,

XII. A defendant executor can give in evidence any special mat-
ter, without filing a list of offsets, under the general issue.
Herrington vs. Herrington, Exec'r &c.,

XIII. Judgment on the proceeding of forcible entry and detainer,
is no evidence in a subsequent action of trespass or eject-,
ment. Spears, Adm'r vs. McKay et al.

XIV. The statement of a witness, "that so far as he knew or under-
stood, the negroes were the property of the plaintiff," is in-
competent. Wells vs. Shipp,

XV. Hearsay must be excluded. Ibid.,

XVI. Records not directly between the plaintiff and defendant, yet

if they constitute part of the res gesta, are competent testi-
mony. Ibid.,

144

197

216

303

305

265

353

353

353

XVII. Cotemporary declarations, constituting part of the res gesta,
are competent testimony. Ibid.,
XVIII. Questions of a witness suggesting the answers, are lead-
ing interrogatories, and inadmissible. Torrence vs. Hurst,
XIX. Impressions, opinions and faint recollections, not evidence,
without the facts on which they are founded. Ibid,
XX. The possession, by the arawee, of an order, "pay to J. A. W.
$246, and this shall be your receipt for so much paid on
said judgment," is prima facie evidence of payment. With-
erspoon vs. Cain,

XXI. Depositions will not be excluded because in the hand writing
of the attorney of the party taking them. Donoho et al.
vs. Petit,

XXII. Plaintiff cannot prove materials furnished under a count
for work and labor done. Richardson vs. Oneal,
XXIII. Where the consideration, upon which an instrument was
given, is expressed, no other and different consideration can
be alleged or proved. Hughes vs. Daniel & Taylor,
XXIV. When it was doubtful whether the instrument offered in
evidence was a deed or a will, the facts of its execution and
delivery, and declarations of the maker at the time, togeth-
er with the instrument, should have been permitted to go to
the jury. Herrington vs. Bradford's Executrix,

XXV. It is not error to permit a deposition, informally taken, to
be read, where it was a condition upon which a continuance
was granted. Hamilton vs. Cooper,

See CHANCERY, III, IV, V.

6 JURY, II, III, v.

"NEW TRIAL, IV.

"PATENT, III.

"PROMISSORY Note, xv.

EXECUTION.

I. An execution issued against an administrator, without revival
by scire facias, and after the lapse of a year and a day from
the rendition of the judgment against the intestate, in his
life time, is irregular. Hicks, Administratrix, vs. Mur-
phy for Moore,

'I. An execution cannot issue against the effects of a deceased
person, before a revival of the judgment against his legal
representatives. Wilson vs. Kirkland,
Huberts vs. Williams,

571

PAGE

353

403

403

407

440

469

488

520

542

66.

155

175

III. Upon a judgment revived by scire facias, the execution should issue on the original judgment. Eastin vs. Vandorn,

IV. A levy of an execution upon the first judgment, and loss of the property by neglect of the sheriff, presents no ground for quashing another execution issued upon another judgment, on the forthcoming bond. Hubert vs. McGahey et al. V. Upon an agreement to refer a cause pending'in court to referees, whose award to be entered as a judgment of the court, which was done accordingly, an execution may issue.— Laide vs. Shrock,

See FORTHCOMING BOND, I.

“SALE, I, II.

“SHERIFF, III.

EXECUTORS & ADMINISTRATORS.

I. If a person dies intestate, and administration is granted to A. B. who dies without having administered all the intestate's goods, administration of the goods unadministered must be granted to another; for the first administrator cannot continue the trust reposed in him to another administrator.-Hendrick's Adm'r vs. Snodgrass,

II. Upon an obligation of A. B. promising to pay to C. D. curator of the estate of E. D. deceased, or to the legal representatives of said estate, the sum of 950 dollars, an action can not be maintained in the name of certain persons describing themselves as the legal representatives of the estate of E. D. deceased, without stating how, or in what manner, they are representatives of such estate. Cushing's legal representatives vs. Gibson,

III. Such an instrument, (supra ii,) being a chose in action, belongs to the executor or administrator, and not to the heir. Ibid.,.

IV. The term, legal representatives, is a generic term, embracing
several species; as heirs, executors, administrators, de bonis
non, or with the will annexed; and the exact character in
which the plaintiff sues, should be stated in the declaration,
or it might not be a bar to a second suit. Ibid.,

V. A. having taken out letters of administration on the estate of B.
in one State, cannot be sued as administrator in another
State, on a judgment obtained against him as such, in the
State where he administered. Winter vs. Winter, Adm'r,
VI. An administrator cannot, as such, sustain a suit for forcible

PAGE

244

246

316

86

87

87

87

211