Cannon v. Young
Cannon v. Young
Opinion of the Court
1. Various rulings by the court at the trial were complained of in the bill of exceptions. They were not, however, made grounds of the motion for a new trial, and as the bill of exceptions was not tendered until more than one year after the trial took place, and no exceptions pendente lite were filed, this court cannot now consider the errors assigned in those rulings. Lester v. Ga., Car. Northern Ry. Co., 90 Ga. 802. Consequently, the only question presented for our determination is that which is indicated and passed upon in the second head-note.
2. According to the principle of Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga. 191, and McLeod v. Bozeman, 26 Ga. 178, the act of 1847 was unconstitutional in so far as it authorized the sale of lands which had already been sold under the act of 1827 and fully paid for. The fact that grants had not been issued upon sales made under this act did not invalidate the title of the purchaser, if in fact the entire amount of the purchase money had been paid. The certificates introduced in evidence in the present case showed that the entire purchase money of one of the lots had been paid, and all the purchase money of the other had also been paid except thirty-seven cents which the certificate states was deducted on
Reference
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published