Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/765

 PLANT V. GUNN. 763 �law and praotioe in Georgia. The following is a copy of the judgmeut : ���Principal, $11,212. Interest to • ���BiBB SUPBRIOR COUBT, �Kovember term, 1866. ���Whereuponit is considered and adjudged by the conrt that the plaintifl do recover of the defendants, Thomas J. Woolfolk, James H. WooHolk, and John W. "Woolfolk, the sum of $11,212 for his principal debt, and �dollars and cents for interest to, and the sum of �dollars and cents for costs of suit, to be taxed by the clerk ; and the �defendant be in mercy, etc. �N. H. Babs, Plaintifi's Attorney. �At the same term an execution was issued by the clerk in �favor of the plaintiff against the defendants, in which the �principal and the interest were both set eut, and the follow- �ingentry was made on the "execution docket:" �K. H. Bass. No. 1. DanielF. Ounn, Guardian, y. Thomas J. Woolfolk, James H. Wodfolk, and John W. Woolfolk, security.* Principal, $11,212 j interest from fourteenth of Aprilj 1860 ; costs, $20.70. �At the April term, 1871, of said court, the plaintiff obtained leave of the court to amend said judgment so as to inolude interest, and a judgment was entered up by the plaintiff's attorney speeifying the amount of interest in dollars, and cents; "this judgment for interest totake effeot nowfor then." �Between the date of the original verdict, judgment, and execution, in November, 1866, and the date of the amended judgment for interest, James H. Woolfolk, one of the defend- ants, on the seventh day of December, 1868, gave to I. C. Plant & Son a mortgage to secure a debt due to them by the firm of Woolfolk, Walker & Co., of which James H. Woolfolk was a member. The consideration of the mortgage was not any credit extended by I. C. Plant & Son at the time, but the securing of an antecedent debt. The mortgage em- braced lands of the defendant in execution, James H. Wool- folk, upon which, by the lawa of Georgia, the judgment of Daniel P. Gunn, if valid, was a lien from its date. In 1869 �*Thi8 transoript was not in the record when the case was heard before the circuit judge at the April term, 1874, and the decision then rendered was partly based upon'the absence of this evidence, (see 2'Woods, 379 ;) the " judgment docket " there referred to belng the " execution docket " which the clerk of the superior court is required to keep by the law of Georgia. v.7,no.8— 48 ��� �