The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1882-02-14

Inc 0t&te @ - Thomas d. bufxfn, ~ O. 0Dnn-
~ Commissioned Of Bradfurd county. 2ppel-
leeA Va Geo. p. CsnOva e al County Commis-
sicne1 OF Baker county, appellants
RANDALL, @. ].
1. When the Legislature divided New River.
Bradford county, IL was compcsentt0 provide
that the new county created out Of its Territory
Baker should assume its pro rata share OF the
indebtedness Of the former, 20 be asccrsained by
therelative valuation oftaxable property in each.
| 90 the time Of the division.
D. The obligation OF Baker county 10 issue its
bonds or 10 pay its debts in the manner provided
In the act creating the county passed In 1854. Is
not affected or controlled by subsequent constilu-
tional or legislative enactment The obligation
OF the contract cannot be thus impaired
= Before Bradford eounty can proceed 10 CON-
pei Baker county to issue bonds for its pro rata
share of the bonded Indebtedness Of The former
to Columbia county, from which Bradford was
| taken 10 must appear that Bradford had issued
and delivered its bonds 10 Columbia county.
4. Under the act OF 1851 creating Baker com
| ~, 1t was made condition precedent 20 demand
| ing the issuing Of bonds by Baker TO Bradford
that the pro rata of the shares Of the capital stock
in the Florida, Atlantic & Gulf Central Railroad
Company held by Bradford county, should be
set apart" TO Baker county.
D. The depreciation of the railroad stock In the
possession OF Columbia. Bradford county
since 1881 for the purchase Of which the original
bonded Indebtedness was created constitutes no
valid reason for the refusal, the part Of Baker
county, TO pay its proportion Of the indebted
ness
g. The fact that Baker county was not party
in the mandamus proceedings of Columbia against
Bradford county. does not affect the liability Of
Boe qo county ins om n That
true amount of her liability TO Bradford in apy
proceeding by Bradford against Baker TO compel
contribution of a pr0rdtd amount of the indebt-
edness OF Bradford TO Columbia.
2. return to an alternative writ of mandam-
us, or cause shown upon notice and petition
should Tor The purpose of making an issue sci IN
positive denial Of facts stated, or should state
other facts sufficient to defeat REALTORS right.
mere answer that a sum stated is not the cor
rect amount, Is not sufficiently specific
q Under the law in force in 1861, the judge
OF PROBATE was Ec-ODsc0 chairman of the board
OF County Commissioners. The County Judge
who succeeds TO the Probate Office Is not
now member of the board, but the beard as
now constituted is the successor of the former
board, and the same duties devolve upon il. ex-
cept ~ its duties have teen modified by law.
Judgment reversed
A. A. knight, Counsel for appellants: A. B.
Hagan and w. w. Wills, Counsel for appellees
John 7. McKeown & c. c. Keathley, appellants,
vs.. I. D. Coogler d j. B. MickIer, Sheriff, ap-
pelleea-Hernando County.
RANDALL. CT:
1. The lien in favor of persons who furnish
supplies, &C.. to enable party 10 cultivate land
and raise crop. need not be given before the
supplies are furnished, but is valid If put ir writ
ing and recorded afterward, there being no inter-
vening equities or liens in favor of other parties
2. Fraud is not 10 be imputed to an honest
creditor who Is preferred by failing debtor as
against another creditor who had been promised
payment by the debtor out of the proceeds of the
same property assigned to the former 10 secure
him.
8. Where a writ of attachment is levied upon
goods, and afterwards an execution is levied
upon the same goods, and the sheriff. before
judgment in the attachment suit. adyertises the
goods for sale under the execution, a court of
equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin the sale under
the execution at the instance of the attaching
creditor, the court at law having ample power
to control the process and lis officer; and the
sheriff acts at his peril in selling the property
under junior levy.
After dismissing bill filed by an attaching
creditor TO restrain a sale under subsequent
levy by execution, ii is improper TO decree that
the property under levy in the hands of the
sheriff be delivered to the debtor The sheriff
Is entitled TO il by virtue of his levies
g. Nor should the decree in such case dismiss
the attachment as such dismissal, if proper,
should be made in the attachment suit.
Decree affirmed in part and reversed N part
w. j. Barnett and j. B. Wall, Attorneys for
lees. = ,'''' = '''' ny sos ->''''='-
Moses Jones, Plaintiff in Error, VS.. The STATE Of
Florida, Defendant in Error-Leon co1nfy
VANVALKESBUGH, j.:
1. In case of deficiency in a grand iurv. ans
ing from the fact that some of the numher
named in the venire issued TO the sheriff. or
other officer, have not been summoned or that
o portion so summoned have been excesed BY
the court for the term il is discretionary with The
court TO order that such deficiency be flied
either from the list furnished by the County Com
missioners, by drawing from the box. or from the
body OF the county.
time, .scsth intent to commit larceny of money.
goods and chaitels, il is not necessary to aver /
what specific money, goods or chattels were Ss- 1
tended to be stolen, or the name of the owner /
thereof
g. When the record shows the propositions of /
law which counsel ask the court 10 give in his /
charge 70 the jury to be in writing, and an en- /
dorsement OF the court thereon in writing.
" refused" with the date and the name Of the 4
judge, no evidence appearing 10 the contrary. il Il
will be held that the court did conform 10 the Il
law, in declaring !" in writing 10 the jury his rub
ing thereupon as presented, and pronounce the /
same to the jury as given or refused"
Judgment affirmed.
]. r. Bernard, Counsel for Plaintiff in Error
Attorney General Raney, Counsel for the State /
James r. Massey, ct al, Appellants VS.. S. B.
Hubbard, etG a., Appellees-Appeal from Alarh-
VA county.
RANDALL, C. j.:
!. AT sale on execution the purchaser takes
only the interest OF the defendant in execution
O. When purchaser of land receives y deed
md enters into possession, and continues in the
actual occupancy, but does hot record his deed
'uch notorious occupancy constitutes sufficient
constructive notice TO Subsequent purchasers
Or creditors TO protect the holder Of the deed
against them.
Judgment reversed
Thraslier and Hampton, Counsel for Appel
ants; Thomas F. King, Counsel far AppelIees
Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad
ssDOss.s
Aarianna Courier, February 81
We were at Chatiahoochee last Saturday and
male q little inspection of what had been done |