The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1884-03-18

Lewis II. Ell,dge and Mary Ellrilgn. his wife,
vs.. William :. Wightmin and John g. ChrlS
topher, partners in trade as Wirh'man Il
Christopher.
WEsrCoTT, J..
A decree pro confess, must he reversed where
the record disclOses that it is based upon Or
der striking out plea, which order does not ap-
pear to have been made after entry OF the motion
to strike on the chancery order book or after
notice ot any other character To the defendants.
Decree reversed
John W. Price, for Appellants J NJ Barrs,
lor Appelees,
Theo. West Appellant vs. Z J. Blackshear X
Co, Appellees-.Iacks County.
NANVALKENBURGH, j.:
l. A declaration setting out the facts that the
plaintiffs on certain day. at defendants request.
let to hire and delivered to the defend mt Ger
tain horse, the defendant promising to use the
same in a careful moderate and reasonable man.
ner while he had HIM on hire but alleging
that he did not use the horse in careful. mod
crate and reasonable manner, and that by reason
OF negligence and caTeesSncSs on the part of the
defendant, the horse ran away and became in
]ured damaged, sick and worthless. is a dcclara-
ton upon contract of bament and the liza
bty of the defendant arises out of such con
tract.
= An action of this character, upon such con-
tract OF bament may be maintained against
the bailcc for any neglect or breach OF duty, by
which the bailorS were damaged.
g. The question of negligence. being
of fact, is peculiarly tor the jury. The evidence
IN This case was conflicting, and the jury having
found by their verdict that the btilec duly
warned by The bail0rs OF the fault or ha,l quality
OF the horse, it was his duty in the Use of the
horse To exercise such and prudence
would ordinarily be required To guard against
mishap from such fault Of which he had been
warned.
4. Common or ordinary diligence, in the
sense Of the law j. such us men OF common
prudence generally exercise about their own
| affairs
D. An exception to the charge OF the court to
the jury that it is not in writing must be taken
AT the time The charge is delivered. | he parties
may waive the ormaty of a written charge,
and they cannot urge upon motion for new
trial. or on an appeal in this conri for The first
time, such omission l. Fla. 1s3.
Judgment affirmed
J. F. Mcclellan. for Appellant: Liddon Il
Carter, for Appellecs
L VI. Ballard and H. d Ballard, Appellants, vs.
Eckman AMI NrlSburg, N m. Respondents
Polk comfy.
RANDALL, C.J.
/. An otlh to bill tor injunction 10y solici-
tor. That the act set forth in the foregoing bill
are true 10 The best OF his knowledge intorma
injunction II states no facts. nor that affiant
hls any knowlrlg" information or belief what
ever
Where facts are stated on inform mllion the
officer To whom application is made Tor an in
junction should require III" additional atii
OF the person from whom the intnrmtlnn is de-
| rived. verifying tn" tynth If The ni"rml'ion.
: An irregular o. i'm pr0vl lrn or l"r granting
/ a prcliminlry niunctnn however erroneous,
viii not affect final decree granted after full
hearing upon The plca'IinE~ ',nl testimony.
4 The question ot !rlud is one of motive AMI
intent To be inferred from all the facts and cir
cum>tancrs nttrndn. transaction anl does not
depend upon prcSnnptl"n> not l"Iima'rlv drawn
from the facts
! ). When purchase of goods is made in COOL
iall 'nl IoI n V ti'll0ir c"n~d'rai"a rom me
/ owner wao i etl'rt'r tSSed an'l 'f'>''N'i'' II"
trlu! i umpire! - 'hr 'Hrrha~rf.
Decree rev'rSe
G. y. II ,n>on, tor Appellants: : VI. Spark
man j. i W III, i"r Appetite
Jam'- VI. Ch'S~cr ana W. y. Com, sheriff, APP
pcI'antS vs. VI "rl'r"er' ht"sp"n'en'-N ON
| RANDALL, C. j.:
TIN. hill alleoes that VI was the owner of the
improvements on llnl of the United States held
| and occupied as homestead under the laws of
the United States ana " WIN the assent OF NJ
sol me improvements aug ''i' poNr>."n III t,'e
Iinu I" -. WI Il 'nI'i'''o o"h'i"ci l"" P' ny
paln' ana y. gave 10 ~ Wrl''hg reci''nS 'hat ne
nai soil MS in,crc.' !" ~ anu contannS 'ht
lollo"lhg: ms IS 10 sho" 'ha' 40 stan"
| Soou ~ VI ~ ~, 'ne tp"'c Preih'Se> d. d h""'
stead for himself under the acts OF Congress
granting OF homes'cads to actual settlers ID.
went INTO possession ana mace valuanie I'M
| prOvements, and was proceeding to take neces-
sary legal steps I" secure homestead title when
y clahuesthely Proculed from Tue nteu suites
Land Omce certlhcate OF entry ot me lanu IN
the name of NJ and then deed from NJ to him
sell and instituted proceedings against H. l" ousI
e. was violation OF his agreement ana fraud
upon the rights OF d. and T. was es'opped rom
asserting 'ie ilsh' VI p'sseSs"h "S'',is. nun
% .na. - g. = n S = ~, II nf NO haI
ance dine To G nnon the sale Of The improve.
! npnts and nessess;on with interest from the
time il became dne he will br entitled to a con-
vevance of the lcgI lille if the allegations of the
hiiI are sustained
Decree is sustained
John w Price for Anpellants Scott &
Thrasber for Anncllee
|
Charles r Jeffreys and Thomas +. S,ribng. Ap-
nellants vs. W. w. Coleman. Respondent
Anneal from Duyal county.
p,xn.,,
NN''N'h' ~ ~
|. when SUIT IS commenced ny summons
and an ancll!ary attachment is issued upon
tissolving the attachment Is a final judgment
from which an appeal lIes such judgment being
final determination of the ancillary proceed
lhgs ,, ,,, ,;, of attach,
- ~ o.,: g p :.l 49, \ 49,,