The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-03-19
HEA D-NOTES To DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
January Term. A. ID. 1889.

E bert Whitfield. Plaintiff in f ror, vs. The
State OF Fiorid.-De'endani in Error
| MITCHELL. J:
l. \ new trial will not he granted when the
testimony is Efficient 10 Sustain the verdict, and
no error Of law appears 10 nave been committed
on the trial
, Arson may be proved by circumstantal ev-
Hence
Judgment affirmed.
Foster & Guaby Tor Plaintiff in Error Attor
ney- General tor Defendant in Error
]. y. Haddock, appellant vs.. W NJ Wright,
ct al, appellees- Duval county.
MITCHELL, j.:
II and two others made their promissory note
payable TO J r. II or bearer. upon which r,
the bearer brought suit. Process was served
on w. only. Al The appearance term 1861, an
attorney at law appeared for The defendants and
continued to appear frr them till 1861, when
Judgment was rendered against The defendants.
Execution issued and there were sales of land
hereunder at different times from 1871 till
1887. The regularity OF the proceedings was
not questioned till more than 26 years alter the
commencement OF suit, and more than 20 years
after the rendition Of the Judgment when after
the death of the attorney, H., Gn an action OF
ejectment instituted against r. to recover part
of the land sold,) without offering to show that
he had merOrious defense to the nOt,, or that
he had not previously known of the former jul
dicial proceedings and sales hereunder pro-
posed to show, by his own oath, that he had not
been served with process in the former action,
and had never employed or authorized the at
torney to appear for him therein.
This evidence was excluded
Ueld, That under the circumstances there was
no error in excluding the evidence offered
by II.
Judgment affirmed.
A. W. Cockrell & Son for Appellant; {. T.
& J. G. Cooper, for Appellecs.
John O. Neil, appellant, vs.. Fannie b. Percival
ct al, apellees-Duyal county. On rehearng
RA1nY, c. j.:
l. Real estate purchased by married woman
and to whom deed thereof is made is her sep
arate legal properly.
2. When a married woman, who is the legal
owner of real estate, purchases with the consent
and co operation Of her husband, materials to be
used TOR the construction OF improvements
thereon and the materials have been thus used,
court of equity may apply the rents and IN
come Of the property to payment for such mate
rails and appoint receiver for this purpose.
3. Upon an appeal taken by complainant
from final decree dlsmissng bill in equity,
an interocutory order adjudjng certain OF the
defences urged against the bill TO be insufficient
will be reviewed at the instance OF the deten-
dants though they have not appealed.
4. A judgment dismssing action at law as
TO one of the defendants therein because the
court of law had no jurisdiction of the cause,
and as to the other defendant on account of an
improper jonder of defendants, is not bar 10
a subsequent suit in equity brought TO subject
the property of the former defendant, a married
woman TO the payment OF the same cause o. &C
ton. Such judgment at law is not judgment
on the merits OF the plaintiffs claim as to either
Of The defendants.
Decree reversed
Randall, Walker & Foster, for Appellant
a. W. Cockrell & Son, for Appellees