USE AND OCCUPATION.

See Trespass 4, 5, 6.

USURY.

1. The jury were directed, that if it
appeared to them that the deed for
the land for which the ejectment was
brought, from the defendant to the
Jessor of the plaintiff, for the consi-
deration of £500, was composed of
money actually lent, a bond can-
celled, &c. that then the deed was
not usurious and void, although it
should appear that a parol contract
was made at the time of executing
the deed to pay 9 per cent, interest
on the said sum of £500. But if it
appeared that the money, said to be
loaned, was not actually lent, but
a less sum, so that the lessor was to
receive by virtue of the deed and
bond, a sum for interest exceeding
the rate of 6 per cent. per annum
on the consideration in the deed,
that then the deed was usurious and
void. Hogmire's Lessee vs. Chap
line,

V.

VACANT LAND.

See Proprietary 4.

Relation 2.

29

VACATING GRANTS.
1. On an application to the court of
chancery to vacate a grant of land
on account of fraud &c. if not for
the benefit of the state, the vacat
ing of it will depend on the equita-
ble circumstances to be established
in favour of the relator. Attorney
General vs. Snowden et al.
332
2. A proclamator of land not com-
pounded on, to all intents and pur-
poses, is not to stand in the place
of the original taker up. He is not
to be considered as party or privy
to the original contract for the
land,

૧

VARIANCE.

See Ejectment 115, 117.
Evidence 83, 84, 85.

VARIATION.

Ib.

VERDICT.

290

23

1. Where the plaintiff in ejectment
makes two loca ions of his reten-
sions on the plots, and there is a
general verdict and judgment, such
judgment is erroneous. Gillings's
Lessee vs. Hall,
2. A verdict for the plaintiff in eject-
ment for land described to begin at
a point, (not located on the plots,)
to be found by running a certain
course, &c being for land not des-
cribed within any particular loca-
tion on the plots, but which was
included within the plaintiff's pre-
tensions. Judgment rendered there-
on for the plaintiff Carroll, et al.
Lessee, vs. E&S Norwood, 186
3. A verdict in a former action of
ejectment, where the judgment
was reversed for error in fact, is
not evidence in a trial of a new ac-
tion of ejectment. Richardson's
Lessee vs. Parsons,
253
4. The jury are not estopped or con-
cluded by the locations made on
the plots by either party in an ae-
tion of ejectment, so that the part
for which they give their verdict,
if for the plaintiff is included with-
in his claim. Darnall's Lessee vs.
Goodwin,

See Evidence 31.
Interest 4, 5.

VERIFICATION.

See Relicta Verificatione

VOID AND VOIDABLE.
See onveyance 36.

Grant 20, 27 28, 29.
Insolvent Debtor 4.

VOID SALES.

See Fieri Facias 1.

284

1. The declarations neither of a tes-
tator, the witnesses, nor the drafts-
man of a will, are evidence to prove
such will. Collins et ux. Lessee, vs.
Elliott,

2
2. One of the witnesses to a will is
sufficient to prove all the requisites
made essentia! by the statute of
frauds, but where all the witnesses
are dead, proof of the handwriting
of the testator, and of all the wit-
nesses, is necessary,
lb

3. The declarations of a deceased
witness to a will, are not evidence
of his signature. Collins, et ux.
Lessee, rs. Nicols, et ux.
399
4. Where all the witnesses to a will
are dead, there must be proof of
the testator's handwriting, and of the
handwriting of all the witnesses; and
where the witnesses set their marks,
there must be proof that such marks
were made by them,
Ib. 402
3. As to the construction of a will
disinheriting the heir at law. Ber-
ry's Lessee vs. Berry,

417

1. To prove a witness interested in the
event of an action of ejectment, by
holding land adjoining that in dis-
pute, the land held by the witness
must be located on the plots. Git-
tings's Lessee vs Hall,
23
2. Where a vendor, after having exe-
cuted a bill of sale of a horse for a
bona fide consideration, retained
possession, he is a competent wit-
ness in action of replevin by the
vendee, to prove, that being in pos-
session of the horse, he gamed him
away at cards. Fister vs. Beall's
Adm'rs.
31
3. To prove that a person offered as a
witness was interested in the event
of the cause, evidence was offered
to prove that he had declared he
was interested, &c. Held, that the
evidence was admissible to impeach
the competency of the person offer-
ed as a witness. Colston vs Nicols,
105

135

4. A security in an administration
bond is not a competent witness in
behalf of the administrator. Bean's
Ex'r. vs. Jenkins's Adm'r.
5. A second husband surviving his
wife, the administratrix of her first
husband, is a competent witness
for her surety in an action on the
administration bond. Wallis's Ex'r.
vs. Britton et ux.
478

G. If after a witness is sworn on the
voire dire, it appears from his own
testimony, on examination in chief
that he is interested, his evidence
may be rejected. Cole's Lessee vs.
Colc,

7.

572

But if his interest appears
from the evidence of other witness-
es only, his evidence cannot be re-
jected,
Ib.
8. Where a witness is objected to on
the ground of his having been
transported to this country on a

ness,

viction of felony to serve seven
years, the party objecting must
prove that such witness did not
serve out the seven years, other-
wise he becomes a competent wit-
lb 373
9. If the defendant in ejectment clains
under a separate bequest of lease-
hold property, and A has a similar
bequest by the same will, and there
is also an ejectment depending a-
gainst A for the property so be-
queathed, brought by the same
plaintiff, who is the executor of the
will, A is a competent witness for
the defendant to prove that the
plaintiff assented to the legacy to
the defendant,
1b. 572
10. Quere Whether a mulatto, born
of a manumitted negro mother, is
a competent witness against a free
born white christian, in a prosecu
tion for felony? The State vs. Fish-
750

er,

the proceedings in a criminal pro-
secution to the superior court?
Cumming vs. The State, 340
2. Quere. As to the manner of cer
tifying the proceedings in a crimi
nal prosecution removed to the
court of appeals?
16.

3. A writ of error must be directed
to the interior court by its proper
style,

4. A writ of error quashed because
it was not produced to and allowed
by the inferior court until after
the return day of the writ,
5. After a fieri facias has been laid,
and before a sale of the property
seized thereunder; a writ of error,
bond with security having been ap
proved, operates as a supersedeas
to stay further proceedings under
the fieri facias Quere. The State,
use Warder, vs. Page, et al.
475
6. If a writ of error be dismissed by the
plaintiff in error, a second writ of
error, though bond be filed, &c.
will not operate as a supersedeas,

where the first writ of error was a
supersedeas Whetcroft's Adm'r vs.
Dorsey's Ex'rs.

482
7. A writ of error is not a supersedeas
where the writ of error bond is not
given in double the amount of the
debt and costs recovered, or where
the condition of such bond is, that
if the plaintiff in error shall not pro-
secute such writ of error with effect,
the bond shall not be void. Johnson
vs. Goldsborough,

499

3203-31/