Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-06-29
THE SUPREME COURT.
Legal Principles Recently DecIaredat

Legal Principles Recently Declared at
Knoxville.
Knoxville Press and Herald, June q.
From the numerous decisions of yes
terday, we abstract a few legal princi.
pies declared in the following cases:
State VS.. Mulberry Gap Turnpike ct
al-The State filed this bill against the
Company and the State Commissioners
thereof, alleging that they were specu-
lating with the funds of the State con-
fided to them in trust for the building
of said turnpike, and praying, among
ether things, to enjoin them from so
| doing. The commissioners demurred
to the Jurisdiction of the court. Held
that under our statutes upon this SUBJ
ject the jurisdiction is undoubted.
Cooper VS.. Wills-In this case the
question Of the statute of limitations
was raised by an adverse possession of
a tract Of land, owned by a married
woman, under parol sale by the hus-
band. Held-That in such case the
adverse possession for seven years
formed q complete bar to the action Of
the wife, or her heirs, a parol sale not
operating to sever the jointure, as does
a conveyance by deed, and the wife be-
ing free to sue at any time.
johnson VS.. Tomlinson, Administrator
An administrator who is a creditor
must evinee his intention to exercise
his right Of retainer by a settlement
with the County Court Clerk within
two years, or his debt viii be barred.
Gillespie VS.. MeEwen-BefOre de-
cree, a complainant may dismiss his
bill, as, of course, in all cases save
where he seeks an account, which IS
submitted to by the respondent. But
after decree, otherwise.
Bird ct al. vs.. Key, ex'r, etc.-COm-
plainsnts, being creditors Of defend
ants testator, file bill to subject to
sale for satisfaction of their debts, GER
tain lands Of testator, situate in Ten
nessee. Defendant pleads that COM
| plainants are citizens of Georgia, in
which State said testator owned lands,
as to which he died intestate, and out
of which compliments could obtain
satisfaction of their debts in the courts
of their own State. Held that the plea
is bad, even though it appeared that
compliments were heirs of testator and
actually had the land in Georgia in
possession.
II .neycutt vs.. State.-The omission
by the court to charge the Jury that
they may recommend the prisoner to
the mercy Of the court In case they find
him guilty of murder IN the first de.
gree, when not so requested to charge,
and the omission, even when requested
so to do, to give a full charge upon the
law of self defense when no facts APP
pear to which the same would be ap-
phcable, are not reversible errors.
West & Vittito VS.. Bee.er-The prac-
tice of admitting incompetent testi-
mony, over the objection of counsel, to
''see what is in it." and afterwards
Withdrawing it, is irregular, illegal and
reprehensible, tending, as it usually
does, to prejudice the minds of the
jury and lead them away from the real
issue.
Huffaker ct al. Va. State, for the use
of Knox county-Neither the misrep-
reservations of the County Judge nor
irregularity in the execution Of bonds
for the security of the public revenue,
nor even both together, viii avail to
release the securities thereon from OBJ
legation arising from the default Of the
principal.
Lovelace VS.. Lovelace.-Under the
statutes of Tennessee a widow is emit
tied to both dover and homestead.