Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1877-11-22
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT.
Abstract Of Opinions Delivered AZ
Rockville Since Lsst Report.

Knoxville Since Lsst Report.
BY JUDGE TURNKEY.
Nave VS.. Arnold: A grant purportin
TO be issued in 1856 by Andrew jackson
governor, but signed by Isbam G. Harris
governor, is not therefore invalid.
BY JUDGE MARYLAND.
Norris VS.. Stephens: When the fathe
is dead, notice to the mother is necessar,
in case Of proceedings to bind 8 child a
an apprentice; and if abe is able to sup
port the child her assent to the birding
is necessary.
When the record does not show sucl
notice, then there should appear from
the record all the facts necessary to give
the court its Jurisdiction and authority
in the premises
The failure OF the motion, after she il
informed of the binding, to take any steI
to set it aside will not estop the child, on
coming Of age, to sue for his wages.
BY JUDGE FREEMAN.
Wheeler VS.. the State: During the op
Grafton of the act reducing petit %l.rceny
10 o misdemeanor, an indictment was
found charging the prisoner with feloni
ously and bnrglariously entering an out.
house with intent to commit q petit lar
ceny.
Held, on motion to arrest judgment,
that the Indictment was good.
Edwards vs. Adler: A redeeming cred.
itor, who gets q Dad title, though be suffer
eviction, cannot recover the amount paid
by him to the purchasing creditor from
whom he redeemed the land.
Mason VS.. Burson: Interrogatories for
champerty will not be entertained, il
fled after the first time the case is in
court.
Tillman VS.. Cooke: The act Of assem-.
bly, which allows the court to call a living
party to a suit to testify against an heir
or personal representative is uneonstitu
tionsl in this particular; the other pro-
visions Of the act, however, are not in
validated by this decision.
Mcfarland vs.. Leeper: 4 had sold his
son B q tract Of land aud received part
payment therefor; by agreement the sale
ia reseinded and A makes an absolute
deed Of gift Of the same to Bs wife and
children, hut requires Of B aud wife a
note for $1,000, the estimated value of
his interest in the premises before re.
session. Held, that this was q personal
obligation and that A vas not entitled to
the vendors lien.
BY JUDGE sXEED.
CoitTell ys. Justices of Claiborne mi
ty: A petition for a mandsmus to com.
pei the justices to pay an alleged debt
Of the county will not be entertained
where the validity Of the debt is con-
tested.
Telford vs.. Broyles: A partner may,
during the term Of the partnership, sell
all his interest in the firm capital, assets
aud profits. and if in anticipation of ap-
pretended loss from the misconduct Of
the agent Of the firm, be take from said
agent. to WHOM he had made the sale,
indemnity to secure him individually
from lose, it will not inure 10 the benefit
Of the firm. but be nay retain it for his
own security.
Johnson VS.. Robinson: To constitute
a resulting trust. even in favor Of a wife,
it is necessary that there should be a
promise to invest the fund received 10 a
certain kind Of property at the time the
fund is received. Subsequent recogni-
ton Of obligation or expression Of inteu-
ton 10 do so will not suffice.
BY JUDGE DEADERICK
Walker vs.. Day, Grisw0ld & Co.: Bona
fide holders Of real estate, making i'm.
provements thereon, are on eviction en-.
titled TO a lien for the full amount Of the
enhanced value Of the premises by rea.
son of their improvements, regardless OF
the relative value Of the rents.
Hoss vs.. Lampson: An error OF 1855
in the allowance Of interest is sufficient
in a judgment of Sl7O to reverse the
same and carry costa of this court
against defendant in error; yet this
court will pronounce Judgment for the
correct amount.