Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-11-23
Abstract of the decisions of the Supreme
 Court of the State of Ar<ansas

F. ". HoADLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW.
 R'ng0ld' ns Appeal from z,deDenaeuee Stone, ct al. C. C.. m ehancery.
 lhls was on bill brought bv the lega. tees under the will of John Redman. de- ceased, against John Ringold and others, to impeach settlements made by Ringold, as eXecutor of the estate of Redman. On the final hearing the chancellor opened the accounts and referred them to the master for re-statement. Ringold alone appealed. The court held:
 lst. The jurisdiction and powers of the probate courts are ample, and its adiudica- tons Tn the settlement and allowance of the accounts of executors and adminstra- tors, must be regarded as the judgment of court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, and is binding and conclusive, except for fraud
 I'd. An omission on the part of an exc cutor to account for interest collected on bonds and notes belonging to estate of tes- tator is a fraud and in absence of proof to the contrary, the law charges him with in terest on them from the time they were exc cuted at highest legal rate.
 "Ihe decree of the court is, that so much of the decree of the circuit court as requires the appellant to account for the interest which accrued on the bonds, notes, etc., that were solvent and belonged to the tes- tator, separately, at the time of his death as also for the testator's part of the interest which accrued on solvent bonds, notes, etc. belonging to the mercantile firms of which the testator was a member, together with the directions of the chancellor for taking an account in respect thereof, ought to be affirmed and that so much of the decree as is against the appellant, touching all other matters in the cause ought to be reversed- the appellant and the appellees each paying one half the costs in this court"
 hlli9tt' ,t admir- ct al'' Appeal from paa Pearce, ct al. 'ePS' e''
 This was on a bill to quiet title, filed by Caleb Elliott in the circuit court of Phil lips county May d, 1853, against Thomas Pearce, Ephriam Putnam and his wife Pru- dence. The land was conveyed by Putnam and wife to one Sylvester in 1886, who five years after conveyed 1t to Elliott .- Elliott also held it under a collectors deed, executed in l844 under sale for taxes in 1888. He also held it under bond for title, given by one McPherson in 1887, who represented himself as having the right to sell the land. Elliott continued in actual possession of the land from the date of pur- chase from McPherson up to the filing of the bill. cultivating and improving the land and living upon it, his title papers being upon record. On the-9th of March, 1852, Pearce discovered that the title deed from Putnam and wife to Sylvester, was defec. lively acknowledged, applied to them and purchased the land in fraud of Elliotts rights, for a nominal price, obtained their quit claim deed therefor, and instituted an action against Elliott to recover possession of the land. The cause was finally heard upon the original bill, answer, etc, and the court dismissed the original bill for want of equity, and decreed the land in controversy to Pearce upon his cross bll Elliott ap- pealed, afterwards died, and his admins trator and heirs were substituted as appel lants
 The court held:
 lst By the act of 1S43 the informality in the acknowledgment is cured. the regis tration legalized and from the date of the curing act, the deed connot 6e impeacIed for not Jeing duly recorded, and hqs Me same e. gull force and efeet os / H lad Jeen duly re- corded in Me fra inStancc except as to per sons acquiring rights prior to the passage of the act
 2d Where an answer puts in issue the execution of deed, the power uDder which it was executed should be produced, so that it might be seen whether there was authori- ty for the act done, and also whether the act was performed in proper manner
 3d. Where A purchases land from B and wife, and before the purchase, B had con veyed all his interest therein to c, which was the use of the land during coverture, etc. A purchases no title which he could assert for the purpose of obtaining posses sion of the land, until after the interest con- veyed by the husband terminates
 Elliott having made out superior title by lapse of time in connection with his possession and title papers, it follows that the decree of the court below must be re- versed, and decree entered here in favor of the appellants quieting their title to the land in controversy, etc, in accordance with the prayer of the original bill.
 JOSEPH KlrTRELL, EX parte
 Application for Mandamus.
 Joseph Kittrell was indicted on the 4th day of September 1859, in Johnson coun- ty; being in custody, he made application to the judge of the circuit court for bail The court set the next day for the hearing of the application, and ordered the wtnes- ses to be subp@ncd, which was done, and they were in attendance until late Saturday evening, the last day of the term. At the time the application was made and until late in the evening of Saturday the court was engaged in the trial of criminal case The judge being indisposed during the term, was only able to hold court in the day time. The judge refused to hear or uclti illlue any OlHeI DuSIleSS HlleT the UlS- posal of the criminal case After the ad- iournment of the circuit court, and on a day of the following week, petitioner ap- piled to the judge of the county court of Johnson county, for writ of habeas corpus and to be admitted to ball. The county judge granted the writ and set day for hearing the application for bail, etc. On petition of the States attorney, the circuit judge issued prohibition to the county judge, restraining him from proceeding further in the matter. The petitioner prays to qnash the prohibition issued by the circuit judge; and for mandomus to the county judge, commanding him to proceed to hearing upon the ha5eas corpus and to grant peti- tioner bail if the testimony adduced shall warrant 1t, etc.
 TAe court held:
 1st. It is competent for the circuit judge to hear and determine applications for bail, as well as in vacation as in term time
 2d. A judge of the county court has not the right or authority to admit to bail after indictment found
 Prayer of the petitioner denied.