The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-06-02


lAf ~ fHi #Hfg fha i
eiig elffiY
M fi6 tllaiF w CA a M
HE NJ nsHy IH lHa Hl "A
ahil AHH Hhhh ihy NJ hHHi ~
~ Nj him
a. Ffsss Il nllf - F# NJ 4
haiafs aa tge II We #
~ 4 IA Hi sHf fH ihe Hlff
~ mi iiHg lhe bYHIefy N
f.llle h ~ FJmsm a o. 49,
asalHsf #hfH ihH HamHH hg.
Aaam n H. flfm #fhl "a 4 lfffd.
81 W ffffaip# aAd vteh Hsfs H4s
~ ylHldf fHpHg "A Ne estate
Hhlsh hHFH u ~ r. ~ tfeHfH
IT, MFfi Haa ~ eHheft me- bHla
Hthi ~ %fsffHti1H atslHal 4 N
iht fstaie IN tia aafH hffa hHHh
lml h lnlaisne y j. ~ dH feHi
finn ~ fsaf#HH aHi IN 4 lHiH
mfht ansf asalhii m Himlnl ifliaf
aHd lfeifi ~ tHlhh pf1HHY N ttf
nlale IN BIZ hands Tmi II eyfg
dsya pffllse nHiff ni laH aml n
MitItd hial II mHy if hrIIy dfhf
shefe ~ esitie NJ Ha iafu dftllfel
iHHltem Aamlffa ttneiaaa a
lisll aim -, q, I, a N W
dtsa hA swaar 10 ihiN fHaf
that lhe estate N iifggt hal bern
deelanHl l%nWlfeni ~ ihe Tine ibf
Rfhahoe Was mmmmei sol WI,
HtrfW, think that the wssa va
pa1efiy Ieuoi and that ihe mdiHn
H. Guasl II su lightly Otuul'l
The third ufdf assigned l that
The tud rendered Judgment against
thu mmiahot IN liH nnsttf, vhcu u
showed lhai q mit Wy the adminia
tmiof waa pending and ~ ieue
against him Ef the dold gnfniaheed
II j. ~ h. observed that he answer
merely states The ftoi4 that The gaf.
, isle had Glod 4 plea NJ payment ~
: which isauo VIA TAKEN IN that suit,
and that II WA then pending II
does noi state that The plea VA true,
J or that The debt had been really paid,
, which, of eoufac, would have been
done II The plea had been true. Tho
answer, under the circumstance, IA d
b clear admission NJ the debt. And
, the fe that a suit had been brought
/ upon II by the administrator did MOI
place Il IN n condition where II could
not be garnishecd by a creditor d
I the e%statcj and when the garnishe'
did not deny In his answer that b,
owed the debt, the judgment on I
; was properly taken.
: LASTLY, Il IL insisted that II wa
: error 10 render judgment against III
! surety ON the bond before judgmen
I was rendered against the principal
The statute on which this is bass
!. provides that no final Judgment shall
! be rendered against the surety unit
judgment shall bo rendered agains
; the principal, u he principal Be
resident Of his Sote.-Rcv, Cod,
g $50, art. 30.
But how Is IL to he made to appea
, that the principal is a resident of thi
! State9 Certainly the Court cannc
Q judicially know or presume that h
!, was q resident of the State when thi
Z judgment was rendered and il woul
!, appear to be more probable that h
: was not, since the process in this cas
@ was returned "not found Ms to hin
$ and II would appear that he was NJ
: summoned in the action of the I'D
Q ministfator OF Briggs against hin
: and Thnshcr, since the plea ,
payment in that casc was filed b
Thrasher alone. But il he was
: resident Of the State, al the time,
was Incumbent on the garnishcc |
J, show II. IL was his interest to do $,
: and if such had been the fact, il WI
0 the duty Of the garnishee, to max
I that a ground of objection to render
ing the judgment against him, and
I must have been susceptible of proc
c IL true. Yet no objection on thi
ground appears to have been made ]
9 the Court below, where, il made,
$ might have been fully obviatcd; an
$ Il Is too late To raise il for the fir
u time in this Court.
II Is sufficient to say, that il Ito,
: not appear, by the record, that Il
principal was a resident Of this Stat
at the time, and we cannot hold III.
judgment to be erroneous upon n
unwarrantcd assumption that he WI
such resident.
Let the judgment he affirmed.
Elicit, j., did not sit in this cas-