Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-01

filed the record for writ of error, and
complain that the Chancellor did not give
them q decree for the amount of the
| judgment, and the interest upon it, as
well as for costs and damages.
Upon an examination of the bond we
are satisfied that the defendants were en-
titled to such decree by the provisions
of the Code, S. 4,439 and 4,447. A de-
cree will, therefore, be entered here in
conformity with this opinion.
DRADKRIoK, Judge.
A true copy.
Test: ]. F. Deaderick, Clerk.
No. ~.
William Curd VS.. r. A. Davis.
| On bill to enforce vendors lien, de-
fects in the title cannot be set up by an
swer, to defeat sale. To be available,
they must be presented by cross bill.
Case approved, Hurley VS.. Coleman,
Head. 265.
| Answer, cannot be treated es cross bill,
unless security is given. Harrell vs.. Har-
rell, Col. 377.
The interest on an account for purchase
money, with payments, is to be computed
on the basis of partial payments
No. 70.
Jacob q. Smith, in error, VS.. Ethan A.
Sawyer.
In suit for one trespass, it is error to
admit evidence tending to prove distinct
trespass.
From the Circuit Court of Jefferson
county, j. P. Swami, j., presiding.
Barton and Mcfarland for plaintiff in
error.
L. A. Gratz for defendant
OPINION.
Defendant, in error, recovered a iudg-
ment in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
county, for damages in procuring his
property to be taken, from which judg-
ment the plaintiff in error appealed 70 this
court.
Several grounds of error are Unlisted
upon by the plaintiff in error. 1t is in
sisted that the court below erred in allow
ing Nancy Neal to state that plaintiff in
error came to her house one day, or the
house of her son, where she lived, and
after asking her about the corn and hogs
on the place, and where her son was, told
her that her son, who was in the Federal
lines, "was fighting against US" and that
snow our side has come and they shall
have"
The record leaves the sentence un-
| finished with the word Shave" But it
may reasonably be inferred that the corn
and hogs were meant.
The witness further stated that the next
| morning, the ''Rebel soldiers were in our
fields gathering corn"
This witness lived in the neighborhood
of defendant in error, but the corn taken
from her, the defendant in error had no
claim to or interest in.
The tendency and object of this proof
were to show that the plaintiff in error
procured the corn of Nancy Neal to be
| taken. 1T so, it was a distinct. trespass
from the one sued for, and had no con-
nection whatever with it, and could not
be looked to as evidence that the plaintiff
in error was guilty of the trespsss charged
in this case.
The testimony was, therefore, improp-
erly admitted by the court. That q de-
PENDANT committed one trespass, is no
evidence of the fact that he was guilty of
another and distinct trespass at a differ
ent time and place. Such evidence t, nds
to mislead the jury from the true point in
issue, and to excite prejudice.
Other errors are insisted upon, but the
one already stated, is oil we deem it ne
cessary to notice.
Let the judgment of the court below be
reversed and the cause remanded for a new
trial. DEADERICK, Judge.
A true copy.
Test: ]. F. DEADER1oK, Clerk.
No. "a
William Evans, ct. al, vs. Henry Evans,
et al.
The adjustment of advancement having
bsen omitted in distribution of the pro-
ceeds of sale for partition, they were
allowed to be adjusted in the distribution
of rents.