Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1879-10-26
sUPREME COURT OPINIONS.

[Reported for the Chronicle, by l.. Till
man, Jr.l
1. Defense =. WatUed.-The defense
that in ord9r to sustain judgment
creditors bill, uoder Code, 3 1882, ct
seq, it is necessary TO show the return
of an execution on the judgment, un-
Satisfied in whols or in part, If 1t be a
defense at all, is to the jurisdiction,
and waived by answer.
Turley VS. Taylor, ct al.
]. Contracts tested By laaO Of State
a0here naade.-Contracts, in the form
of negotiable promissory notes, exc.
cuted in the State of Georgia, must be
tested as to their validity by the law
of Georgia, and q decision OF the
highest court of that State on exactly
similar coE4racts, will, ordinarily, be
| followed by courts of this State.
Elliott National Bank We. w. q A.
Railroad.
| 2. Public egentS-P0aUeTs limited by
Ststute.-The powers of public agents
being defined by statute, which is
notice to all the world, are limited,
and no pretension of authority or GUS
| tomary action can amplify that au-
thority beyond the statutory limita-
ton.
Idem.
SQnle-Contract U0id- When.- The
uperintendent of q certain railroad,
the property of the State of Georgia,
was authorized by statute to make con-
tracs necessary for the general work
| ing and business of the road not ex~
ceeding a prescribed sum, and over
that amount subject to the approval of
! the Governor in wTiting-Hetd. That
| notes executed by the uperintendent,
| each calling for an amount over that
prescribed without the approval of the
Governor in writing, were void, even
| in the hands of innocent purchasers
for value in due course Of trade, and
although similar notes had been exact
ed and paid by the Superintendent.
Idem.
Pre- ctjce-P Partie8-1 The Supreme
Court invariably refuses to make de-
cree when material parties are not be-
fore it.
Norton Us. Memphis, PAducah and
Northern Railroad Company.
Ssn1e-2. A bill by one only of sew
eral contracting parties, to do certain
thing, cannot be maintained to cancel
the agreement, though it may to en-
force it.
Idem.
C0Sts-6urettes Of Successful Party
l. The SuretieS of the successful party
in suit can not be held liable fol
costs under provisions of The Code
sec. 1904
Notice of Mot;on.-Even previou!
to the act of 1879 (chap. 113) notice tC
the successful party of motion is nee
essary if it be made after six months af
ter the right to the motion accrues.
Payne vs. Gothard.
CJunty Court Guardian-JtWiSdic
toni. The County Court has az
power to make to guardian (of la
natic or infanO an allowance in exces.
of The income of the wards estate.
2. Chancery Court-S4me-Same.- -
Tue Chancery Court alone has sucf
Jurisdiction, but it will not be exer
fcised except in plain case, and it il
doubted whether it will be exercised
at all after the corpus has been trencheC
upon.
Trout vs. Baldwin ct al.
Receiver -L1solUent eStote-Superse
deds.-An order of Chancellor made
in the progress of a cause, involving
|. the administration of an insolvent es
: tate, appointing a Receiver to take the
assets out of the Executors hands
upon 1t being made to appear to ths
Chancellor that the assets are in dan
ger of being lost or wasted, is within
the power of the Chancellor, and car
not be superseded by this Court under
section 1888 Of the Code.
Robertson, Ex'r, VS.. Robertson ct al.
: Vendors lien-Ferry boat-Not tfrtasre
A ferry boat with chain and buoys, &c.
is not fixture of the realty, although
the chain by which it is run ia fast
ened to the boat and an island in ths
river, and hence, registered lien fol
| purchase money Is lost as to suct
property by their destruction, anC
does not extend to new boat and ap
purtenances substituted in place of thc
, one destroyed and worn out
II Cowart vs.. Cowart.
Married aOOnsen-IEtIe 6ond-No
void,-A title bond. or contract of sal,
Of land, by married woman, is no
: absolutely void, but merely voidable
l and hence, there is no ground to re
2 seind a sale under such contract upor
bill by vendee, If tie husband ant
wife Insist upon the validity of tn
; contract and offer to perform it b,
2 making the title as agreed.
Davis vs. Mcmillan ct al.
/ Bankruptey-AsSignee naoy sue i,
: State Court.-An assignee in bank
ruptcy may sue In the State Courts /,
: recover the assets of the bankrupt. an,
such suit in no way affects or inter
feres with the jurisdiction of the Fed
eral Courts.
Barton, assignee, vs.. Geiler.
Observation-Disclosures a bill t,
4 enforce an attorneys lien upon land
the administration of the debtor ia no
+ a necessary party.
= Mckinney vs. Key.
! 1 L5naitati0R.-Stated denaand.-A bill
l for an account and settlement of ,
partnership, brought by the execute
OF one of the partners against th,
heirs and personal representatives O
the o.her, can not be maintained afte
0 the lapse of twenty years-especiall,
q where the original parties have died
a Snd when it Is manifest, from tht
I nature OF the case, that all the fact
: necessary 20 correct settlement cal