A TABLE OF CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME. Abbot's ex'r v. Doe ex dem Ken- Adams v. Tanner & Horton, Alexander's adm'r v. The Bank at Montgomery, 393 Brantley and Rice, 297 Brinyea and The State, 465 Brown v. Brown, 383 Brodnax & Newton and Stephens, 173 Burt and Wright, et als, Bank of the State and Bondurant, Bolling and Evans, 550 184 740 Brazeal v. Smith, 206 241 414 508 517 Branham and Wilkinson, 608 258 29 171 Burns v. The State, 227 179 Butler and Alford v. O'Brien, 316 679 Campbell & Cleveland and Quigley, 76 26 Caperton v. Martin, 217 295 Cahawba and Marion R. R. Co. and 237 277 Bass and Carter v. Gilliland's heirs, 761 Conklin v. Harris, 213 Same v. Dearman, 200 Vadie and Todd, Doe ex dem Davis v. McKinney, 698 380 234 419 Jordan, ex'r, v. The Bank at Hunts- 479 567 Joseph, adm'r, v. The Legatees of 158 Joseph, 280 428 Kennedy v. McArthur, 151 719) Saunders v. Hendrix, Minge and Russell v. Curry and Co. 168 Schieffelin & Co. and Kemper & McDougald v. Talbot, 421Sims & McQucen v. Pryor & Saxon, 592 678.Smith, et als v. B. Bank at Mobile, 568 583 72 578 Stuart and Pruitt, et al. McQueen,592 Sturdevant v. Gaines, 467 110 REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED, JANUARY TERM, 1843. THE BRANCH BANK AT DECATUR v. KINSEY. 1. A bill of exceptions allowed and scaled by the Court, becomes a part of the record, and cannot be altered or amended by the Judge after the adjournment of the Court. 2. In a contest between a creditor and one claiming by deed from the debtor, the consideration is not proved by the recital in the deed, but must be shown by extrinsic evidence. ERROR to the Circuit Court of Lawrence. Original attachment v. Joshua T. Kinsey, by the plaintiff in error, which was levied on certain slaves. To the property thus levied on, John M. Kinsey set up a claim, by affidavit, under the statute, and gave bond to try the right of property; and the cause coming on to be tried, a verdict and judgment was rendered for the claimant. Pending the trial, a bill of exceptions was taken, from which it appears, that the Bank proved the slaves in controversy to have been in the possession of the defendant in the attachment, at the time of the levy by the sheriff, and also proved the value of the property. |