character claim in West Virginia

1949The presumption of innocence has been characterized as a legal presumption, Garner v. Com monwealth, 186 Va. 600 , 43 S.E. 2d 911 , and as a fundamental principle of criminal law, 20 Am.

1949The presumption of innocence has been characterized as a legal presumption, Garner v. Com monwealth, 186 Va. 600 , 43 S.E. 2d 911 , and as a fundamental principle of criminal law, 20 Am.

1947Jur., Limitation of Actions, Sections 405 and 406; Smith v. Brown, 44 W.

1941To the effect that statutes which require claims against a decedent’s estate to be presented within the time specified by published no lice to creditors, and, if founded on a written instrument, to be accompanied by a copy of such instrument, are mandatory, see State of Montana, etc., v. District Court, etc., 90 Mont. 281 , 1 Pac. (2d) 335 , 76 A. L.

1941To the effect that statutes which require claims against a decedent’s estate to be presented within the time specified by published no lice to creditors, and, if founded on a written instrument, to be accompanied by a copy of such instrument, are mandatory, see State of Montana, etc., v. District Court, etc., 90 Mont. 281 , 1 Pac. (2d) 335 , 76 A. L.

1920Ed.) 490; Rictgeley v. West Fairmont, 46 W.

1912It does not extend to eases where the defendant has acquired the possession peaceably and in good faith, under color of title.” Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U. S. 261 -97.

1887At any time before the sale of any such land as hereinbefore mentioned such former owner or any creditor of such former owner of such land having a lien thereon may-pay into court by and with the consent of the court all costs, taxes and interest due at. the time, as provided for in section 12 of this chapter, and have an order made on the order book of such court describing the amount paid in, as well as the character of his claim to said land, which order so made shall operate as a release of all former taxes on said land, and no sale thereof shall be made; provided, that such payment shall

1886In the case of Gillett v. Commissioners, of Tyon county, 18 Kans. 410 , in the bill of particulars which seems to have supplied the place of a declaration, after describing in general terms the character of the claim, the plaintiff «averred that on a certain day,' “the county board being in regular session, he presented his claim for services properly sworn to, and the same was properly filed, but the board took no action in reference to the claim.'” The bill of particulars was demurred to on the grounds that it did not sufficiently set out the cause of action in not averring the presentation

1886State v. Cooper, 26 W.