The Charlotte Democrat., 1889-05-10

IN assigning it and in consideration of that
assignment conveyance of land was
made to the husband in his name, there 10
no resulting trust in her favor.
An alleged mistake in deed must be
shown by clear and convincing proof to
justify finding that mistake was made
10 drafting it. Where the plaintiff al
leges that the defendant had notice OF an
equitable claim, the burden 10 on the plain
tiff to show it by prepondersnce of testi-
mony.
Flsum vs Wallace, from Iredell.-l.
Generally fsme covert is incapabls of
making contract at law.
2. The separate legal estate conferred
by the Constitution 10 subject to the same
rules ss to the enforcement o. her engage
msnts in the nature OF executory con-
tracts. as is her equitable estate.
8. As to the legal separate estate, the
written assent Of her husband is 50 bstitu.
ted tor the consent of the trustee unless
the engagement falls within the excep-
tions mentioned in section 1925 of the
Code
4. Where the equitable separate estate
is conferred with specific limitations and
powers must be ob.erved.
5. Where in the absence of such specific
aud powers, q feme covert
could, under the former law, charge her
separate equitable estate with the consent
of her trustee, she may now charge her
separate legal estate; but the written con-
sent OF the husband is necessary, except
in the cases mentioned.
6. Under the former law and therefore
under the present law, she may bind her
separate personal estate with the consent
of the husband or trustee, as the case
may be, for the payment OF any engage
ment provided the consideration is sufi-
cieut to support contract made by per-
sou uij,sris, and provided che expressly
charges her separate estate in the instru.
meut creating the obligation.
Z. Where the consideration is for the
benefit of her separate estate or is within
the exception of section 1927 there j. a
necessary implication that she intends to
charge her separate estate, and there need
be no express charge 10 the instrument.
10 order TO enforce q charge against the
separate estate, the complaint should
scution shall issue against that alone.
the separate real estate, where there has
been NO charge by way of mortgage or
other conveyance, is not before the court
aud is still an open question.
In the enforcement of such charges
against the separate personal estate the
fems covert is entitled to the personal
property exemption.
J. M. Rice VS. r. r. Jones.-One who
is examined in supplementary proceedings
az to his indebtedness as to the judgment
debtor must answer at bis peril, and
should not admit indebtedness merely be-
cause he had therefore executed to him an
note, which might have been
assigned for value before maturing. He
should require the judgment creditors to
establish his Indebtedness. The holder OF
q note is entitled to recover on it against
the maker, notwithstanding an order in
supplementary proceedings condemning
the debt, ii the holder is not party to
the proceedings, and he is entitled to re.
cover interest Notwithstanding the maker
had deposited the money in bank to await
the result of litiga tioD; and he is entitled
to his costs.
State vs Weddington.-The Grimm al
Court OF Mecklenhurg has jurisdiction to
try cases removed into it from adjoining
and it may try such cases, a.
though the record is ordered to BIZ cer,i.
fed to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg
aud to be thence certified to the Criminal
Court, if the order OF removal is properly
made to the Criminal Court, aud the
record is properly authenticated. Where
one is charged with murder by means of
a plank and there is evidence tending to
show that the fatal blow was inflicted
with a piece of iron calculated to make a
wound of the same character, and the
method of operation is the came, there ie
no variance.
The statute allowing defendants to tes.
tify it not to be construed so as to deprive
the State of any right it had before this
privilege was granted.
Cornant vs. Barnard, and others
Where the defendants join in demurriug
to this complaint because it does not
state cause of action-and it does state
q cause of action as to one OF the defend.
ants, the demurrer must be overruled as
to ALL
The plaintiff cannot recover q greater
sum than be demands in the complaint
unless be amends; bat any relief may be
granted consistent with the case made by
the complaint and embraced by the
issues.
Emry vs R. & 6. r R.-The Supreme
Court on appeal will impose no limit to
the exercise of discretion by the judges
below in settling prices. except that the
facts established by the response to them
shall constitute lawful basis to the
Judgment and that the law applicable to
any material portion of the testimony
shall be fairly presented through the me-
dunn of some issue.
Where the main question was one of
negligence in not providing a culvert un.
der the defendants roadway sufficiently
large to carry off rainfall.
Held, Il was not competent to ahow
that the engineer who constructed the |
Dulvert was sn experienced engineer.
Where witness tor defendant had |
testified that the culvert was the largest |
be had ever built, it was competent for
plaintifto show that not far below on the |
same stream q culvert much larger had |
been constructed. Where land and q