GEORGIA STATE SUPREME COURT

If you would like to add information, please contact me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~1859~~ 

Job Turner, plaintiff in error, vs Henry B Jones and others, defendants in error, 1859.

This was a bill by Job Turner, against Henry B Jones, John Joiner, Cullen R Lockett, John Hodges, and Winstead Spicer, to establish a lost deed, and for an account and relief. 

    This bill states that Henry B Jones was the drawer of lot of land 132 in the third district originally Muscogee, now Marion County, to whom a grant from the State issued: that afterwards in 1838, a fifa, issued against Jones from a Justices Court in Meriwether County and transferred to Marion County, and levied upon said lot of land as the property of Jones.  Levy dated 22 March 1842, and said lot sold on the first Tuesday in May 1842.  by said Cullen R Lockett, sheriff of said county, to said John Hodges for $14.00, who executed to him a deed for the same.

    The bill further states, that at the time of the execution of said deed by the Sheriff to Hodges, the said deed and execution were handed to the Superior Court of Marion County, who duly recorded same, but that said originals and record were afterwards destroyed by the burning of the court house in 1845. 

    The bill further states, that Hodges sold said lot of land to plaintiff on the 15^th day of Dec 1851, and executed and delivered his warranted deed for the same.  That John Joiner pretends to have title to said lot of land, and claims the same and has placed Winstead Spicer in possession thereof, as his tenant.  That at the time Joiner purchased said lot, he knew plaintiff had good title to same and was in possession thereof; but knowing that said execution and deed were destroyed by fire, as before stated, he purchased with the intention to defraud plaintiff.

    The bill states, that plaintiff has by no means of establishing the foregoing facts but by a discovery from said parties – defendants.

    The prayer of the bill is, that copies of said destroyed fifa and deed be set up and established by decree of this Court, in lieu of the originals so destroyed; that said Joiner, his assigns and tenants, be compelled and decreed to deliver to plaintiff, the possession of said lot of land, and account for rents and profits thereof.

Defendants demurred to this  bill on the grounds:

Because plaintiff had full and adequate remedy at law.

Because of a misjoinder of parties.

After argument the court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill, and plantiff excepted.

Judgment reversed.

Jacob Waddel, plaintiff in error, vs State of Georgia, defendant in error, 1859

Vagrancy, from Marion County.  Tried before Judge Worrill, September term 1858.

    The defendant having been convicted of vagrancy in the county of Marion, applied in the court below for a new trial, and on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. And the motion being refused, he brings up his case by writ of error to the court.

    I was never more impressed with the folly of sticking to forms, than when reading the presentment of the grand jury in this case.  Jacob is accused of having with force and arms, etc., and doing what? Knocking someone down? No, but with force and arms, doing nothing but strolling about in idleness.  He is not being indicted for being a know-nothing, but a do-nothing.  The offense itself was somewhat anomalous. Every other in the code charges the defendant with doing something. This, for doing nothing.

    Is the offense sufficiently sustained by proof? The grand jury presented Jacob, and the traverse jury convicted him upon the testimony, notwithstanding, Jacob was seen ploughing a  potato patch and doing other small jobs, within the last 2 years.  His fancy seems to have been mostly to walk the high-ways.  The case is not a very strong one, still there was proof enough to warrant a conviction.  And the jury are particularly the judges of proof.

    So Jacob will have to go to work, not only to work, but to hard work.  So says the code.  We fear this will go hard with Jacob at first.  It will be a great change in his habits.  Might not the law, in this humanitarian age, have condemned the vagrant the first year to work only, and the second year to hard work?  Ought not a portion of the vagrant’s hard earning, to be provided to his family, if he has one?

    I am quite satisfied that a large portion of the population of our towns, could be convicted  upon stronger proof than this.  It is time, perhaps, to give them a scare; to admonish them of the old adage, that a bird can sing and won’t sing, must be made to sing.  That able bodied man must not cumber the ground, living on the sweat of other mans toil.  “Why stand ye  here all day idle?” is a question which the master of the vineyard propounds, and which the penal code has answered.

Judgement affirmed.

Mathis vs Weaver, 1896

Equitable decision, before Judge Butt, Marion County, June 30, 1893

On Feb 25, 1893, Mrs Mary M Harvey presented her petition to the Superior Court of Marion County, against her husband Thomas W Harvey of said County and Evan T. Mathis of Sumter County alleging:   Her father Joseph Brown died intestate in Talbot County in 1871 or 1872.  Thomas W Harvey became one of the administrators of his estate, received possession and control of all her interest therein, has since held the same and now holds it for her own separate estate, benefit and behoof, it being money and effects in value $12,000 or other large sum.  He made at least 8% interest in same until the last year or two when he became feeble in body and mind and unable to manage his affairs.  He turned over the same, along with his own property and effects amounting to $18,000 or other large sum to Evan T Mathis.  Petitioner and her husband reside in Buena Vista, some 28 miles from Americus where Mathis resides.  It is very inconvenient for her to apply to Mathis for support of herself and her husband.  She applied to her husband for a draft on the Buena Vista Savings Bank for $4,000, he having informed her that he had deposited $7,000 therein.  This check was not made, the officers of the bank informing her at the time the deposit had been changed to Evan T Mathis, agent for Thomas W Harvey.  She is informed and believes that Mathis is not worth exceeding $5,000.  He has given no bond or security for the faithful management and accounting for the property and money turned over to him.  She prays for an accounting of the money and property which went into the hands of the defendant, and for a receiver to take over that which was turned over to Mathis.  By amendment she alleged that since the filing of the petition, Harvey died, and Mathis had propounded for probate in the court of ordinary of Marion County, as the will of Harvey, wherein Mathis is appointed executor, which probate is contested by petitioner and said contest and caveat now pending in the superior court on appeal, and no administrator ad litem has been appointed pending the issue of divasit del non.  Petitioner is the only heir at law of Thomas W Harvey, and as his widow is entitled to a dower and a years support from the estate.  She has duly applied to the court of ordinary for a years support, which application is pending and undetermined.  Mathis has, no only all the money and property belonging to Harvey's estate, amounting to his own statement, $62,000 in cash, promissory notes, and other property, but as pretended executor has likewise the money and other property which Harvey in his lifetime recovered from the estate of petitioner's father, amounting in principal and interest to $23,000; so that petitioner is wholly without means of support.  She is in bad health, is sick, and stands in need of money with which to secure medicine and medical attention and the necessities of life.  She has appealed to Mathis for money for said uses, which he refuses to supply, or furnish her with any money or other things until the litigation about said will and twelve months support has ended; and in the meantime the petitioner will be left entirely destitute and to the charity of friends and relatives.   Mathis has no money and in her opinion is insolvent, and he is under no bond as pretended executor to represent estate or to secure money and property in his hands.  Wherefore she prays for the appointment of a receiver and for decree that he pay to her a reasonable sum for her maintenance according to the circumstances of life, pending the litigation touching the pretended will and until the setting apart of a years support.

    As cause against the appointment of a receiver, Mathis demurred to the petition, for want of equity and want of jurisdiction of him, among other grounds.  He also filed an answer, and on the hearing the judge ordered that Mathis be appointed permanent receiver of the estate of Harvey, that he file a list of assets thereof, and he pay to plaintiff immediately certain sums to be credited upon any years support that might be set apart to her, or upon any other sum that may be coming to her from the estate.  Mathis excepted.  Pending the case in the Supreme Court, plaintiff died.  Weaver, as her executor, was made a party in her stead. 

Judgement reversed, June 30, 1894.

Marion County vs Short, 1916

This is an action against a county for alleged taking and damaging plaintiffs land, without his consent, by the commissioners of roads and revenues of the county, in connection with widening, repairing, and improving a public road that runs through plaintiffs land in the county.  The overruling of the demurrers, general and special, to the petition is sustained by former rulings of this court in the following cases: .....

Action for damages before Judge Gilbert, Marion Superior Court, June 10, 1915.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Return to home page

This page was last updated on -06/23/2012

Compilation Copyright 1999-Present by The GAGenWeb