The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1886-06-17

ehcc oi TWO witnesses, anu should nave SuCh per-
sonai knowledge OF the circumstances ot their
signing will enable him 10 swear i'm good faith
that none OF the means prohibited by lhe statute
have been used in procuring their signatures.
=. The testimony in the case held to- not only
establish that majOriiy of the registered voters
OF the district did not sign The petition bui also
to show otherwise pranaa facie violativc o:
the statute.
Alternative writ dismissed an peremptory writ
denied
IL. IL Hcrndon, Calhoun. Davis & G,llis Tip
ton Bradford, for Rclator; Hooker 4 Mabry, J.
B. Gaines for Respondents.
Is. Z. Drake, Appellant, VS.. S. l.. Granger, Ap-
peilec-Alachua county.
MCWHoRTER. 9. j.:
l. judgment of q court of record valid under
the laws Of the State where recorded il valid
here.
2 A plea to an action on a Judgment of an
other State hat the debt for which such judgment
was rendered had been paid is a defence ex sting
anterior to said judgment and ON motion should
be stricken from The record
B. When suit is brought in the conris OF this
State upon n judgment rendered in another. State,
the defendant can plead in bar that the court in
which such Judgment was recovered never nc
quired jnrisct of his person.
4. \ transcript OF the proceedings and jutlg-
incnt in II suit in the Superior Court of Massa-
chusetts, which does not show that a summons
to the defendant to appear WAS ever ISSUED or
that The defendant appeared in person by nj
tOrncy to said suit, Is na,lmssble in evidence
against the defendant named therein.
). return by the sheriff. on another paper in
the cause that he had served IA summons on the
defendant, no summons appearing in the trans
script Is Insufficient 10 authorize the conclusion
that such summons in TACT existed or Was served.
Judgment reversed and cause remandrtl
J. j. IL $. Y. Finley, Ashbv, Scott & Thrasbcr
for Appellants; w. w. Hampton for Appellee.
Eliza Simmons, ct al, Appellants, W. L. w.
Sprait, Appelce-Molon To dismiss Appeal
RANEy, j.:
The defendant in an action of reclmenl may
appeal from the final judgment therein.
Motion denied.
A. W. Cpckre i Son, for motion; Geo
Wheaton Deans, contra.
NJ. NJ. Nelson, ct al, Appellants, VS. Louis J
3rnsh, Appeec-Ilisbornusll county
MCWHoRTER G. j.
l. deed by one to land which is in the al.
verse Possession of another is vold IA against
such adverse claimant
:. When by written agreement between oppos-
ing counsel 1t Is admitted that 1.-THE defendant
Was IN the actual POSSESSION of the land sued for
claiming The same adversely to the plaintiff an
all others, this court cannot infer that The de
fcndan WAS Il trcsplsscr
3. Il. makes Il deed To linI To d. while n is
IN adverse p''ssc~sioa thereof: IL|d, That The
deed is only void rs to N aud .s against him
The title still remains in Il whD may >,, To- md
recover the land, that sucn recovery will inurc
I" the bcnc of D., rs the dee from B To d. is
valIl as between them.
Judgment affirmed
Lncls Finley, S Y. Finley. and Wall Il Tur-
man, tor Appellants; R.ndall, Walkers Il Foster,
). NJ. " q. B Sparkm IN, for Appellee.
lsalc smith, Appellant, vs.. Charlie, w. Davis
and Andrew Scott, Sheriff, AppclIccs -J,ck-
son county
MCWHoRrER &. j.:
|. The remedy by in nuncion is IL preventive
one only, and when The act which is sought t.
be prevented is done and Accomplished if il party
IS aSSrevcd thereby he must res rt To some other
remedy Tor redress.
:. lhi' Court, ON appeal from IN inlerOcut0ry
decree of the Circuit Court, refusing io grant an
injunction, the record showing that the acI sought
to be prevented hId been done an i ccomplisiied.
alter The refusal OF the injunction and before The
appeal, Is without powerl lo afford relief To The ap
peant and will not inquire whether the court
erred in its decree
.. There Is no error in Il Ju lge Of the Circuit
Court refusing leave to a complainant VIII h III
filed IN original bIll for an Injunction which had
been denied by the Judge, 10 file suppem .nl,
bill, when the bill showed that the act which the
original bill sought TO prevent had been done
Decree affirmed.
Lidd"n " Carter for Appellant; John w. Ma
lone, for Appeees.
G. O. Livingston. Plaintiff in Error, VS. f. NJ
L'Engle, Trustee Defendant in Errnr-Duval
county
RANEY, j..
l. The transcript OF the proceedings should
show affirmaively the making OF an inermedi-
ate order which it is sought to have reviewed on
appeal
= Where one Of the errors assigned is the max
ing OF an order striking out plea, and IL state
mcnt nt the making of such order in and ;.s one of
the grounds of motion for new trial is the only
showing in the record that such an order has
been made, and ii appears that such mott N has
been denied by the Circuit Court, the fact that
such AN order has been made by the Circuit
Court will not he assumed, nor can Il review of
the alleged order b. lsed the IN ere statement
in the motion.
3. Where the only plea or where all the pleas
to Jle declaration arc of new matter and there is
no replication and consequently no issue of fact,
it is error to submit the to u jury for trial
and such error may he taken advantage of pri-
marily on appeal.
Judgment reversed.
The Chef-JuSiicc dsients rs To the last heal
note.
Nj. G. Jordan, for Plaintiff in Error; C. p e.
j. c. Copper iur Defendant in Error