Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-08-08
DIgested Decisions of tile Supreme
Court, jackson, April, 1872.
BANK CHECKS.

CERTIFIED CHECK, OBLIGATION Of
A certified check. is an admission on the
part of the banker that he holds that
amount of money, and an undertaking to
hold it for the payment Of the check. An
drews VS.. Ger. Nat. Bank, No. 45.
CHECK CERTIFIED BY REQUEsT-The
liability of the drawer to the holder of the
check is not affected by the fact that it is
certified at his request; nor is the duty of
the holder to make demand, or tse degree
of diligence required Of him, modified.
Idem.
CERTIFIED AFTER ACCEPTANCE-If
certified after it is taken by the holder, and
a. his request, it seems the rule is differ
ent. Iden.
CHECK, TINE OF RIsK-During the day
on which it is drawn, or issued, and the
next day, a check is at the risk of the draw
er; afterwards at the risk of the holder.
SchOo!field VS.. Noon, No. 8.
CHECK, ABSOLUTE ACCEPTANCE BY
THIRD PARTY-If the payee of check
pass it to third person who takes it abso-
lutely as cash, without recourse, the holder
is not thereby precluded from charging the
maker. Iden. Cases criticised: Green VS..
Lanier, Jackson, Tenn, 1871, and Barry
W. TIdLlCig NJ IL NaSO dpPlONCN' OAOh-
filler VS.. Cox, in Clark vs.. Lambeth, No. IS.
CHANCERY PPRACTICE, ANSWERS AND
BILLS.
ANSWERS FILED, OBJECTION FOR WANT
OF BOND, WHEN TO BE MADE.-H an an
swer is fled as a cross bill without bond
for costs. it is too late to object for the want
Of bond after appearing aud answering the
cross bill. Hall Is FOwlkes. No. 81.
DECREE ON COVENANT OF WAR
RANTY.-A bill was fled by purchaser of
land against the holder of the legal title to
remove it as a cloud from the title of the
vendor who was made a party defendant,
but no relief prayed against her: Held that
it was not sufficient to support a decree
against the vendor on covenants of war
ranty, though on cross bill the right was
adiudged to be in the holder of the legal
title. Idem.
DECREE BY VIRTUE OF MECHANICS
LIEN, WHEN TO BE REvIvED.-A decree to
to sell in satisfaction of a mechanics lien,
cannot be executed, after death of the
owner of the land, without revivor.
Rogers Us. Brian. No. GO.
DECREE TO FoRECLosE. 1t may be
otherwise as to a decree to foreclose a
mortgage or deed of trust. Idem.
DECREE IN UsURY, AMOUNT MUST BE
STATED, ETC.-A bill was filed to abate
note and deed of trust for usury, but did
not state the amount ofusury. Upon answer
admitting usUry to about a stated sum
the Injunction was dissolved and the de-
PENDANT permitted to have sale for the
amount claimed in his answer. The Su-
preme Court suspended the order of sale
and on motion to discharge the S1LperSedeGs,
it was denied until the amount of usury is
sscertained. Parte vs.. Weakley, No. los.
CHANCERY PLEADING-A defendant
cannot rely upon ground or defence not
distinctly made in his answer. Rogers vs..
Brian, No. 63.
CHANCERY SALE, CONFIRMATION AND
RELIEF OF PURCHAsER-A purchaser viii
not be relieved from purchase at Chan
Gerry sale for defect known to him before
confirmation, though not known until after
the sale. Spence VS.. Armour, No. 5. Same
on Releasing, Uid No. So.
MATERIAL MISTAKE AS TO BOUNDARY,
ETC-A material mistake as to boundary
and frontage of a lot in city will be good
ground of setting aside sale. Idera No. 50.
CHARGE OF COURT.
IRRELEvANCY IN CHARGE-A charge,
of the court, wholly inappicable to the
facts, If calculated TO mislead the jury, is a
ground of reversal. CrenShaw VS.. Smith,
No. Is.
CONSIDERATION AND RECITAL.
CONSIDERATION, RECITAL OF ITS PAY
MENT-A recital of the payment of the con-
sideration of an instrument is conclusive
in a controversy as to the validity of
the paper, but the payment may b3 denied
in a controversy as TO the recovery of the
money. Southern Life Insurance Compa-
nv VS.. Booker, No 70.
CONTRACT AND DEED.
FAILURE TO AFFIX |3;G55ARg ZEAL
TO DEED Where a seal is necessary to
validity of a deed, the failure to sffix the
seal does not render the deed wholly mop
erative; but it would still operate as a writ
ten contract to convey, and as such would
form a sufficient consideration for purchase
money notes, Brinkley VS.. Belhill, No, 81.
TENDER OF NEW DEED UNNECESSARY
in such notes being given for purchase
money at one, two and three years, they
nav be recovered upon without tenGer of a
new deed. Iden.
PROBATE COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY.
POWER TO APPOINT A TRUsTEE.-The
Probate Court of Shelby county has juris-
dictiOn to appoint a Trustee. Wilkins VS..
jenkins No. DO.
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH
COUNTY COURT.-It seems that by virtue
of the reference in the act, creating it, to
code, sections 420l, 1903, with also the ref
erence in the 18th paragraph of section
42OI, its jurisdiction is concurrent with the
County Court in all things. Idem.