and no demand for a deed is necessary before action is
brought. Ibid.
5. Althought it may be necessary for the plaintiff to aver
in his pleadings the fact that he is the survivor, as well
as the facts as to the second sale, in order to be entitled
to prove them as a matter of right, yet if the testimony
be admitted without objection, and no motion is made
to withdraw it from the jury, he is entitled to the ben-
efit of such testimony on a motion for a non-suit. Ibid.
Arnold & DuBose vs. Ga. R. R. & Banking Co........50th
Battle vs. Shivers.......
Dow, Wilson & Herreman, vs. Smith & Co............ 8th
Jones et al. vs. Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co.........39th
Justices, etc., vs. Hunt et al...
Kirtland et al. vs. Davis..........
Kollock et al. vs. Jackson...
Laramore et al. vs. Young et al.......
Lester et al. vs. Ga. R. R. & Banking Co............... .42d
Long vs. The State.......
Doyless vs. Blackshear et al.......
Moody vs. Ellerby, adm'r......
...............................
Roff, Sims & Co., vs. Johnson.....
Sanders vs. Town Commissioners, etc.....
Savannah & Charleston R. R. Co., vs. Callahan......49th
Selma, Rome & Dalton R. R. Co., vs. Lacey..... 49th
Selma, Rome & Dalton R. R. Co., vs Lacey...........49th
Sheffield et al. vs. Collier...
Southern Insurance & Trust Co. vs. Lewis & Bro....42d
Stallings vs. The State......
Union B. R. R. Co. vs. East Tenn. & Ga. R. R. Co..14th
1. Where the special Act establishing a County Court for
the county of Dougherty made no provision as to the
time within which the writ of certiorari to said Court
should be applied for, the general County Court Act
controls. Pattillo vs. The State.......
173
2. Where a criminal case was tried before the County
Court of Dougherty county and the defendant, upon
conviction, attempted to carry the same before the Su-
perior Court by writ of certiorari, but the Judge re-
fused to sanction the petition, which refusal is assigned
as error, the Solicitor General of the Albany Circuit is
entitled to represent the case in this Court. Ibid.
3. If illegal evidence be admitted by a Justice and no ob-
jection be made at the trial, both parties being repre-
sented by counsel, the admission of the evidence is not
a good ground for a certiorari. Southwestern Railroad
Company vs. Cohen........
.... 627
1. Where it was a question at issue whether such con-
sent or direction was thus given, it was error in the
Court to charge the jury as follows: "What they (the
City Council) do, so far out of the line of their own
business as to be evidently done in the execution of
somebody else's job, if such owner was present and
knew what was going on and made no objection, will
be presumed to be done by consent or direction of such
property owner, if nothing appears to the contrary.
But this presumption may be rebutted by any suffi-
cient facts or circumstances, such as the owner of the
property protested against it," etc. The jury had the
exclusive right in this case to determine what presump-
tion arose from the facts proven by the evidence.
Mitchell et al. vs. Mayor and Council of Rome......... 19
2. Where, upon the trial of a case arising under the for-
cible entry and detainer law, the jury reported to the
presiding Justice that they could not agree upon a ver-
dict, and the magistrate told them that they must
agree or he would take them with him to Blakely,
and the jury subsequently returned a verdict for the
defendant, but upon being polled, two of them stated
that they had consented to the verdict, but had not
agreed to it, and the Justice received the verdict over
the objection of the plaintiffs:
Held, That the proceeding was illegal. Powell et al. vs.
Lawson....
3. It is error for the Judge of the Superior Court, in his
charge to the jury, to express or to intimate his opin-
ion as to what has or has not been proved. Deupree
et al., ex'rs, vs. Deupree et al., caveators................
1. There was sufficient evidence in this case, showing
that the value of the land levied on was greater than
the amount due on the execution, to authorize the
damages to be assessed on said amount. Kitchens,
trustee, vs. Hutchins......
2. A claimant of property levied on by an execution
issued on a judgment founded on an attachment cannot,
on the trial of the claim, traverse the grounds on
which the attachment issued. Foster vs. Higgin-
botham.......
3. The Act of 1871, Code of 1873, section 3741, author-
izing the plaintiff in execution, where a "claimant"
has withdrawn his claim, to go to the jury and recover
damages, "in case it is made to appear that the claim
was interposed for delay only," is not retroactive, so
as to apply to claim cases then pending, it not appear-
ing that any previous claim of the same property had
been put in and withdrawn by the claimant.
ker vs. David............
CONFLICT OF LAWS. See Laws, 1, 2, 3.
1. Under the provisions of the Constitution requiring an
"equitable apportionment of the compensation of the
District Judges and attorneys between the counties
comprising their districts," the tax required by the Act
organizing said Court to "be levied in the several
counties composing each Senatorial District
upon the taxable property returned therein, as together,
will raise an amount sufficient to pay the salaries," etc.,
should be apportioned between said counties in propor-
tion to the amount of taxable property returned in said
counties, respectively. Holtzclaw vs. Russ, Ordinary;
Giles vs. Same.......
2. The Relief Act of October 13th, 1870, making the
payment of taxes upon debts contracted prior to June
1st, 1865, a condition precedent to a recovery thereon,
is unconstitutional. Gardner, trustee, vs. Jeter, adm'r;
Same vs. Adams.......
.... 195
3. The Act, approved 20th February, 1873, imposing a
special tax on wholesale dealers in malt liquors, is not
in violation of the 27th section of Article I. of the
Constitution of the State, which says "taxation on
property shall be ad valorem only, and uniform on all
species of property taxed." Bohler vs. Schneider et al. 195
4. Such a tax is a tax on a business, occupation or call-
ing, as decided in Burch vs. Mayor and Aldermen of
Savannah, 42 Georgia, 596, and, hence, is not a tax
on the sale of liquors, which, by the 3d section of Ar-
ticle VI. of the Constitution, may be assessed for ed-
ucational purposes. Ibid.
5. The Legislature, under the constitutional requisition
to provide a thorough system of general education,
may grant the power to county authorities or muni-
cipal corporations to levy a tax in aid of such system
within their several territorial limits. Board of Edu-
cation, etc., vs. Barlow et al......
6. A board of education may be appointed by the Leg-
islature within such limits, with power and authority
to use and appropriate the school funds thus raised in
connection with what may be derived from the general
fund provided by the State, and to superintend and
control the schools that may thereby be established, the
same being under such supervision of the State School
Commissioner as by law may be provided. The fact
|