Public Officers: Removal: Reappointment

1910 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS ty unless his risk is thereby increased. Movunt v. Tappey, 70 Ky. (7 Bush) 617; First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. Garlinghouse, 22 Ohio St. 492; Samuel v. Withers, I6 Mo. 532; Davis v. Converse, 35 Vt. 503. Where the interest only of a usurious note is avoided the surety is still bound for the principal. Mitchell v. Cotten, 3 Fla. I34. ? 2888 of the Georgia code provides that if the statute against usury is violated the excess interest shall be forfeited. The note is not void. Partridge v. Williams' Sons, 72 Ga. 807. But "homestead is favored by the law and usury is odious to the law. For reasons of public policy no waiver of homestead can be effectual where the consideration has any taint of usury." Tribble v. Anderson, 63 Ga. 3I. Therefore it is apparent that the surety in the principal case would not necessarily have been discharged had it not been for this homestead waiver, and the case is interesting for this reason. This principle has been established by a line of cases in Georgia, and there should have been very little doubt as to the principal case. The following are the decisions: Small v. Hicks, 8I Ga. 691; Harrington v. Findley, 89 Ga. 385; Lewis v. Brown, 89 Ga. II5; Howard v. Johnson, 9I Ga. 319; Vandiver v. Wright, 94 Ga. 698; Allen v. Wilkerson, 99 Ga. 139; Denton v. Butler, 99 Ga. 264, and Prather v. Smith, IoI Ga. 283, which involved the mere inchoate right of homestead, and therefore very slight chance of actual loss. Three of the former are cited in the principal case and the latter especially relied upon. But the case of Weldon v. Ayers,
doi:10.2307/1272609 fatcat:w5m76qatavcx5kwm7ccxqs5mxu