Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1877-10-31
SUPREME COURT.
Abstract of Opinions Delivered 81
Knoxville on Last Saturday.

-
Abstract OF Opinions Delivered st
Knoxville on Last Saturday.
BY JUDGE DEADERICK
Fair VS.. the State: A witness is incom-
petent to testify who, under the late law
making petit larceny only a misdemean
or, was convicted Of that o%fense, al.
though the judgment did not in terms
declare him Infamous.
BY JUDGE sNERD.
Hicks vs.. Brandon: Though q iudg.
ment or decree may be irregular or erro.
neous, yet IN original bill will not lie TO
set the same aside unless it is void.
BY JUDGE TURNEY.
Ellis Ex'rs VS.. Temple: An admins
traitor or executor is personally liable for
the costs Of a bhl which he files in his
representative character.
Carriger vs.. Smith: A creditor with a
debt created before the homestead act
does not waive his right to subject it to
the satisfaction Of his debt by subse-
quently taking a deed of trust.
Earnest vs.. HaWs: A suggestion OF
insolvency made six years after grant Of
administration comes too late to protect
the administrator.
BY JUDGE MARYLAND.
McCollum vs.. Mayor aud Aldermen Of
G~reeneville: A judgment against a
garnishee is not valid unless rendered
upon IN answer in writing as required
by statute.
Well VS.. Marsh: A condition in a
note for the benefit of the psyee il
waived by him cannot be afterward taken
advantage Of by the maker.
BY JUDGE FREEMAN.
Patterson vs.. Wilds: An attaching
creditor of the clerk and masters COSTS
cannot hold the costs Of the deputy
taxed to him in the bill of costs.
Miller vs.. Taylor ct al: An amended
bill becomes a part Of the original bill
and makes with it but one suit.
In insolVent cases the heir must have
an opportunity to contest the validity OF
claims before the order passes for the
sale Of the land.
In such cases the petition by the cred.
iior showing the character of bis claim
Is under our system the best and safest
protection.
If a mas is objected to, either BY the
administrator or heir, it must then be
proven, and the affidavit cannotbe looked
to for proof.
Generally the practice 10 i%nsolyent
cases where not expressly fixed by stat.
ute is regulated by the rules 10 cases OF
creditors sill against trustee.
II a creditor desires 10 save the bar OF
the statute, be may present his claim 10
The CLERK during vacation, taking his re.
ceipt therefor; it is then the duty of the
clerk to note the same on the rule docket
The answer Of the heir, stating his il.
norance Of the claims alleged against the
estate, and bis consequent inability to
either admit or deny them. puts the cred.
tiers 10 proof Of their claims
a Judgment against the administra.
tor is not conclusive upon the heir; but
an admission by him is conclusive as 10
the personality.
Hawkins County VS.. 4. T., Va and
Ga r. K Co.; A stipulation by the
vendor that the vendee snail do a certain
thing which it is impossible for him 10
perform, is not evidence Of fraud against
third parties affected thereby.
Turney j., dissenting.
An agreement Of compromise is not
subject to the rules Of law governing in
cases Of covenant.
A purchase of property subject to q
s%efvitude takes il cum onere and musl
perform the conditions; and on failure "a
do so he, and none other, is liable fol
damages resulting thereirom.
Note-ln this case the s~oundness oil
the doctrine Of the trustOeship of rail
road companies for the benefit Of the
public is questioned.