The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1884-06-24
MEA D.NOTEs TO DkCIsIONs or THR
SUP6 EME COURT OF FLORIDA.

January Terms A. ID. 1884.
Eckman & vetsburg Appellants vs. s. Brash &
Son, Respondents-Jackson county.
RANDALL, c. j.:
|. In q suit by appellants against respondents
to recover upon their alleged special promise to
pay debt due appellants from H. B.. the olleW-
ing paper was Offered in evidence by plaintiffs:
|" Received of Mr.. D. for E. V. forty mine 6S-100
do9lars as commission for guarantee of 81. B.'s
account, which has been settled by him in full
with note. (Signed] 8. B. q Son." Held, that
this Is moi guaranty or promise to pay the
account Of Fl. B., nor to pay notes given by
H.jB.
.. Such receipt is evidence of the payment
and satisfaction of commissions upon prior con-
tract OF guaranty of the payment of an account
which has been settled by note, which contract
of guaranty is not contained in the receipt but is
evidently Independent of it.
/ g. Nor Is this receipt evidence of money paid
bysplainiifs for and at the request of defendants
nor of msney due on account stated, under the
common. counts.
/ T. Every agreement which is required 10 be in
writing, under the statute OF frauds must be GER
taip in itself, or capable of being made so by .
reference to something else whereby The terms
caa be ascertained with reasonable certainty
without reference to parol proof The entlfe
agrsemedt must be in writing and signed by the
party to be charged.
Judgment affirmed
Appellee:
Arthur Williams, Plaintiff in Error, Va The
State Of Florida, Defendant in Error-Orange
county.
FANVALKsNBURGH, j.:
At common law, boy under the age of four
(eea years Is presumed to be incapable OF COM
hitting the crime of rape.
Judgment reversed, and new trial awarded.
VIM. Scott, for Plaintiff in Error; Attorney.
General. .|spr The State.
James d. Matheson, ct al, Appellants, vs. Gam
Sel B. Thompson, Respondsnt-Appeal from
DuvalIcounty.
RAsDALL, C. j.:
The mortgage afterwards assieued In form, and
thea fordcEosed BY the assignee without making
The holder OF the legal title Q patty to the fore
cloAure, % suit by the lattes 20 set asi6s the
foreclosure decree, and the dee4 executed under
Il y closfd upon his title, the mortgages are
nOs nece2Hary parties
III q Wftere two mertgsges upon; different par
cets of prcperty are given TO secure the same
| dekt payment and satishction Of one is . sat-
fsf1cti0n 0f both mortgages. .....,..,,...
g. A fdgeclosure being had by the assignees Of
| satisfied mortgage under which de6fes and
i. bot being made party, and having no notice OF
| l,he proceeding until amer sale under TIE de-
eres, such grantee may maintain syit iR- equity
70 snjoin the parties from conveying or asserting
saalm to she property, and to annul' suek decree
E3lnG deed she same being cloud upon his title
III Decree sffrmed.
Finley s. Hampton. for appellants; E. G. r.
lfi'spchezl for appellee.
Avisliam Pells, Plaintiff in Error Va. The State
of Florids, Defendant in Eror-Leon county.
n NAtVAIKeNBuRaH, j.:
III L An Andictment charging that the accused
ID ,oxe ana entered, with intent to commit Q fel
b,t, 4 4a:tain building, to-wit: the Main Kx.
pM;tisn bailding Of the Middle Florida Agri-
IA lsural Snd Mechanical Fair Association" ID f.
Sally defecsive In not alleging that the building
| y the property OF corporation or persona
]bE q Ther0le 10 well settled, that the ownership
| .9f the building 30 burgariously entered must be
1 alleged in she Indictment
| Il Judgment arrested and the accused DISCHARGED
| j q. B, Hilton, ]. w. Mitchell John g. Beard,
| br Plainhf in Error; Attorney General, for The
p Nv. Bead, Appellant Va Gooding, Null &
{Ass CD, Respondents-Orange county
4ssDAl.t, C. J.:
AN appeal does not lie from an order, In case
| 81 lsw, granting . continuance. Such order
hAr be 6fgned for errsr upon an appeal nom
xAe snal nndkment
= A ..pe4f jismissed.
| n st. Cli!r Abrams, for appellant.
la ---o-ses-o-
IL Thede be plumed knights who know moro