Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-20
OFFICIAL.
Opinions OF the Supreme Court Of the state
Of TenRessees al Nashville, December
Term, 1883.
Noun. oiiTst Cemetery CO. ". shulert.

Mount oiiTst Cemetery Co. W. shulert
This was an action originally commenced before Jusijce a
Peaee ami carried b appeal the Court ahere H.
plaintiff below hal judgment for sGI9, the deendsn,
below has appealed in error to this Court.
The Circuit Judge charged the jury, that Stewart vas the
general agent Of the defendant % supernend control and
the cemetery grnn Is and that tue disposition, renting
the house ese1Psd By shuber came within the scope o. ai
age1ey ana tSt stewart a. ue en had agreed with sh1bet
at be mt occupy me h9nse s o. rent in that the
would he bound BY the act Of It, agent though in vo
ton Of m insrueons unless shnert knew that Stewart
The esanssl Of plaintiff in error insists that this charge err
bnt because il is based upon snppostiOas Of facts which do
not exist. and thas mssa the jury.
Company that stewart sEperReae1t OF tie cork,
and that there is not The slightest evidence OF bis general
that be bad authority rent did not rent The hoas Of the
Tb execution 10 The charge is we think unsouned in fact
Il that Nance shown have the general
the Company ard Stewart the superintendent Of the CORR but
there is also proof in record tending
likewise the general agebt Company
W to do,aud d do things not pertaining TO tie feiin
tendency and from which his authority to the
houses Of the Company might we'll be inferred It ia that
there proof that he lid not rrnt the house to shubert
nor i il shown which OF the agents OF The Company did rent H.
But proved positively fset both % rhoas and James
Stewart that shuet was 70 have The house Tree Of rent and
also nre@ood Tree OK charge lie was married maps ana "a
bored hand for the Company IL the interest Of the
Company that its other laOre and hands shnud be boarded
near Their work and ne was Induced 70 open ooar-ng house
for that purpose o. the houses Of the Company its
rent, and likewise Grewood free Of charge.
II tie jury therefore rejected The seto clsine ~ the Com
well warranted By the proof
Bu, charge merely abstract having noresgAncy
evidence and
Of DO understand ground reversal
y not uness can @ shown to says do1s harm to he jury
The ae errO. aS.ned S IL relation item, in the plain
Cunningham amount, plaintiff sum,
and ane to him in payment Ct the debt the debs he held
he guaranteed ,heeaa plaintiff WIG afterwards present
ed i to The Treasurer Of The Con and he promised ray
to the plaintiff having then funds in hand pay it. This
promise was manst male as Treasurer and for and behalf
Of the Company.
There Is attempt show any authority
Treasurer 10 make this promise, and nee be- authorized
70 presume It. unless the he shown ANGEL Aes
Corporations, sections s9l, ss6, So "a 29s, 3eg
BY the purchase Il he deit Of Cunningham upon the Com
being merely open account therefore, tie promise Of the
Company % the plaintiff pay him may, upon
principles have beel enable the plaintiff S
10 maintain TIE action in his 70 Mel
Mosby2 Yer. SO and authorities there collected.
pany, Treasures can at an materia for ansty he
Company owed Cunningham the Ss75. and the plaintiff
purchased the debt and entitled 70 collect the Com
Il manifest the statute Of frauds can have nohiag to Go with
this promise Of the Company since simply pay
debt % the 9sGit6 Instead Of Cunningham me original
creditor he having ssd the debt to The psDfj6 n S
manifest, that difference, that Cunningham re-
mansd bound or guaranteed the debt to the plaintiff
dence to explain the cip found the plaintiff
and from Cunningham the Company the
debts for which y ven pail There vas
in this. Greeal Nv. 305. Angel Amss on
Corporations. sec 2s4 Meigs' Dig. $50.
Besides il does not appear that sBcifc OBJECTION
this evidence. 1t contained in the DISPOSITIONS
and James Stewart and eyconEned much other testimony
tirely eomPeteqt general objection, therefore,
made to the reading these DISPOSITIONS because alleged
neompeency Of the witnesses, they being competent
reach the parteu Of the proof leaFiug receipts
The record shows that the i7th Of February 1855 The
Of the pandG By order Of tie Circuit Court set
aside and the cause rensae before; plaintiff
The record does Of the non suit nor the
reason for setting aside and exception Is made the action
term and after the cause was tried the defendant
Court to tax the plaintiff with ali the costs q he
reffs
do and exception is taken To this OF the Circuit Courts
the Circuit srSe We Do not not nE st he C es sT r s.
co sso # TeaD IS NOR sFo5s e. and l @ ne
a correct cory, J. P, CrAnE, Clerk "'
Mason vs.. wessuorelaad
One Of the questions ra in this is whether justice
Of the peace has uri render judgment Of
OF fifty dollars unless demand and notice expressly waived
in the endor ement and think he not.
In the Of Crockett ais Wright decided By 81.
Court Of this State in e Hum. 2 it was held in
and p and 1s5 l. thar the jurdiction Of les
tee q the peace against al eneoser, did
50: as gives the jurisdiction, is repealed.
The jurisdiction be- i'es extended to Eve hundred dol
lars upon endOmentso negotiable paper where demand and
notice are expressly waived in the endorsement
OF the ordinary endorsement where there waiver Of demand
notice. there hiss been jurisdiction whatever
The terms obkatioA contract other egasaces Of d5t
not embrace il will be reasoning Court
Wright, Hum. as2.
terms OF tbs nstrument-but BY the operation
itself furnish evidence dbteness with
out the aid OF extrinsc facts
But to have awaited himself this Of Jurisdiction
defendant should have appealed II Judgment
within the time allowed for the appeal, not,
TACT should have been stated legal appeal
and the ce1fiOri should for lew trial. and not
to quah the judgment and execution, and should have
taken to the OF the Circuit Court eoEen
satisfactory shown Why delayed
from the rendition Of the justices Judgment
IL THIS had e5n done, rial in the Circuit Court it
could, matter 81 eCdeHcs have the justice
had no jurisdiction.
But having failed to do ills the judgment held valid
its face and open upon ser
seas, when it cOIaray, paro other proof
lbars the proceeding HE proceedings justice
show in what character the liability OF the defendant
either N the warrant the Judgment and the note cannot he
looked to in this collateral applications evidence be heard 20
show that the endorsement Witt Ram
y, IL Hum 2tS, Johnson Turner Deberry, do. 80
The result is that the Circu Judge erred in quashing the
Judgment and execution, and also dismissng tn petition
Tor wr Of ee0rar and suTsGeGs, and the Judgment Of
the Circuit Cv1rt be reversed
But the will remands, with leave amend the petit
ton, make proper for tria merits,
i this can be done, By showing valid legal for
peang and also for the delay in the attempt bring
he case to the Circuit Court.
judgment reversed. WRIGHT
correct copy, J. P. CLARK, Clerk.