The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-07-21
J. ID. LEACH,
ISAAC SHELBY,

Appeal from the Chancery Court of Boil
yar County Hon. Edward Stafford, Chan
celior.
i On February IS, 1878, a. d. Leach con-
veyed certain tract of land by deed to
Laura NJ Rice, who he subsequently mar
ried, for the nominal sum of $l,6OO-the
real consideration being that of marriage.
Il lie had previously conveyed certain other
tracts of Land to his son J. d. Leach, and
daughter, Mrs. Mary A. Brazier, by deeds OF
& gift. On the 9th November, 1874, Mrs.
Leach, formerly Laura VI. Rice, made vol
suntary conveyance of her land to stephen
IL. son of A. d. Leach. On the Sth of
March. 1868, Isaac Shelby recovered judg-
ment against \. ID. Leach for 1888 %, and
&in 1874 filed his bill in the chancery court
OF Bolivar county. seeking to have these sew
eral deeds cancelled aud the land subjected
10 the payment of his debt. 4. ID. Leach, j.
II d. Leach. minor son of the latter, and Geo.
Bazier the husband of Mary A were made
defendants in this bill. The answer of A.
d. Leach contained full denials of all fraud,
and he ayerred that the conveyance to
Laura w. was in consideration of marriage,
and his testimony supported his answer
Mrs. Leach, Formerly Laura NJ. Rtce,) was
examined as a witness for the complainant,
and depossl that the conveyance TO herself
by her husband was voluntary, and not Ia
considerance Of marriage. decree was
rendered in the court below in accordance
with the prayer of the bill, and this appeal
- 81. aitFFl N
for error:
|. There was no legal service of process
on the minor defendant, J. ID. Leach. The
return was, executed this day in person
also on A. D. Leach, as
guardian, by copy."l
,. Thcdeposition of Mrs. Leach was taken
or part, as 70 !. D. Leach, and no commits
sion was Issued for taking the same.
3. Mrs, Leach. wife of A. ID. Leach, was
incompetent as a witness in this cause.
1. A dnsl decree was made without the
cause being SET down for hearing.
O. The court erred in giving complainant
decree.
CAMPBELL. J.
The inst assignment of error is not well
Nken. The return of service of process is
surety ~ accordance with the statute on
the subject
ne second assignment of error cannot
PreVals. There was a motion to suppress
,ne deposition, and no objection was made
70 IL IN the court below, because of the abb
selce OF 4 commission or because the depo-
sutton was taken Darte The minor appel
laut had guardian al Item properly APP
pointed whose duty it was to conduct his
HSe!ehse' aud as to the matters inEolved.. in
is assignment OF error, must be treated as
an sdut would be.
S.4.i ioarta assignment is without merit
s.Hg d cause for hearing is a mere matter
lot convenience in practice II consists in
'atihg the style of the case on the issue
IooAe'' etc The general docket is to show
ne eathes OF the parties and date Of fling
- p per IN the cause, and of the issuance
IN III ~. .eeSfa OF the process, and reference to
JJ giuets u tbe case. The case is not to be
g., go oh tue issue docket until it is ready
a. - J.s NEARING, OF On the demurrer of all
He defendants. The general docket serves
fropa ,V ~ Tue general history of the cause
IN I'm .ue hrst step to its end The issuc
no'Ae1 ana the motion docket are TO show
eIe matters TO be heard by the chancellor.
~no Soes not undertake to dispose Of the
SHer1 uocAet, but of those matters set
Ja %n oy 1he clerk on the issue and melton
doSHss' respectively, which are the only
80 ss les 70 be called. There is no ealIiae
81 .ne general docket. 1t is to contain note
Sen 81 .h 70 every paper and order and
deE tha .ae cause serving as q complete in
coprs - =. ana all causes ordered By the
Oe set down. on the proper tiocl<et. a