Physician held entitled to recover from daugh- | ter for services rendered her parents, the daughter having agreed to furnish such services in consideration of a transfer of property from the parents to her.-Rounsevel v. Osgood (N. H.) 535.
Actions for causing death, see "Death," § 1. Allegations as to particular facts, acts, or transactions, see "Deeds," § 3.
statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of,"
Pledgee of stock is entitled to dividends thereon, and, if such dividends are paid to pledgor, he receives them as trustee for pledge.-Meredith Village Sav. Bank v. Marshall (N. H.) 526.
Of municipality, see "Municipal Corporations,' § 7.
statute of limitations, see "Limitation of Of insurance, see "Insurance.' Actions," § 3.
Applicability of instructions to pleadings, see
Trial," § 5.
Foreclosure, see "Mortgages," § 9.
In particular actions or proceedings, see "Equi-
ty," 84: "Libel and Slander," § 2; "Re-
plevin," § 1; "Trespass," § 1.
§ 1. Plea or answer, cross complaint,
and affidavit of defense.
The division of a general defense in action in
equity into separate defenses is unnecessary, un-
der the practice act, by which formalities of
common-law pleading are abolished.-Botsford
v. Wallace (Conn.) 10.
A plea of want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief gives defendant the same right of controverting the allegations to which it applies as
would a denial.-Sayles v. Fitz Gerald (Conn.)
§ 2. Amended and supplemental pleadings and repleader.
Where demurrer has been sustained to complaint in action to restrain erection of building on plaintiff's land, it is error to disallow amendment adding claim for damages.-Botsford v. Wallace (Conn.) 10.
An amendment, adding a new and different cause of action, held not allowable, under Rev. St. c. 82, § 10.-Willoughby v. Atkinson Furnishing Co. (Me.) 612.
In an action for negligence of master, where the evidence disproves such relation, but shows defendant's liability on another ground, plaintiff should be permitted to amend his declaration.-Whitten v. Stockwell (N. H.) 81.
Whether justice required the allowance of an additional count to a declaration in an action for trespass alleging that defendant's acts were malicious, etc., held a question of fact for trial term. -Jenness v. Jones (N. H.) 607.
Defendants in an action on a fidelity bond held entitled to amend their answer setting up discharge for increase of risk shown by complainant's evidence.-Kellogg v. Scott (N. J. Ch.) 190.
§ 3. Bill of particulars and copy of ac
Of water course, see "Waters and Water Courses," § 1.
POSSESSION.
See "Adverse Possession."
Of demised premises, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 5.
Of attorney, see "Principal and Agent."
PRACTICE.
In equity, see "Equity."
In justices' courts, see "Justices of the Peace," § 2.
In particular actions or proceedings, see “Account," § 1; "Ejectment."
accounting by executor or administrator, see "Executors and Administrators," § 11.
condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Domain," § 3.
Particular proceedings in actions, see "Abatement and Revival"; "Costs"; "Damages," § 3; "Divorce," § 1; "Evidence"; "Execution"; "Judgment"; "Jury"; "Limitation of Actions": "Pleading"; "Reference"; "Trial."
Where suit is brought by assignee of a chose in action, on demand for bill of particulars, plaintiff must furnish a copy of the assignment, together with other writings constituting the For insurance, see "Insurance," § 3. cause of action.-Cullen v. Woolverton (Ñ. J. Err. & App.) 646.
Objection that a pleading is not sufficiently Acquisition of rights, see "Waters and Water specific can be reached only by a motion to strike out. Ferguson v. Western Union Tel. Co. (N. J.
§ 5. Defects and objections, waiver,
and aider by verdict or judgment. Of bill or note. see "Bills and Notes," § 3.
Under Gen. Laws, c. 239, § 14, if plaintiff in
action on book debt makes no objection to an insufficient affidavit filed by defendant until the
trial, he will be deemed to have waived his ob- In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 2.
jections thereto.-Pawtucket Steam & Gas Pipe On appeal or error, see "Appeal and Error," i Co. v. Briggs (R. I.) 595.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
Admissions by agent, see "Evidence," § 5.
Corporate agents, see "Corporations," § 6.
Insurance agents, see "Insurance," § 2.
Municipal agents, see "Municipal Corporations,"
§ 3.
Evidence held not to justify a charge that
one procuring the execution of a note was act-
ing as the payee's agent.-Woodward v. Bixby
(N. H.) 298.
§ 2. Rights and liabilities as to third
persons.
Directing verdict for plaintiff held proper.
where uncontradicted evidence justifies such
finding.-Strauss v. American Talcum Co. (N.
J. Err. & App.) 631.
Principal, in absence of evidence showing that
agent exceeded his authority, held bound by con-
tract made by him.-Tapper v. Sunlight Oil &
Gasoline Co. (Pa.) 286.
PROHIBITION.
§ 1. Nature and grounds.
A writ of prohibition will not lie to restrain
contempt proceedings for violation of a tempo-
rary injunction, since petitioner has an adequate
legal remedy by motion to dissolve the injunc-
tion.-Toomey v. Comley (Conn.) 741.
PROMISSORY NOTES.
Defendant having indorsed notes and had
them discounted by plaintiffs, and taken a check
therefor in his name, which he indorsed, is li-
able for money had and received on the check,
though he was known to be acting as agent. See "Bills and Notes."
Cook v. Forker (Pa.) 560.
An agreement signed by a person, claiming to
act as agent, in his own name, and not as agent
or attorney, held not binding on his principal.
Bourne v. Campbell (R. I.) 806.
Under Gen. Laws, c. 202, §§ 2, 16, an agent
without a written power of attorney, executed in
the manner required for the execution of deeds.
held not entitled to execute a lease for a period
longer than one year.-Bourne v. Campbell (R. I.)
806.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
See "Bonds"; "Guaranty."
Liabilities of sureties on bonds for performance
of duties of trust or office, see "Executors and
Administrators," § 12.
on bonds for performance of duties of trust
or office, see "Sheriffs and Constables," § 2.
Nature and extent of liability of
surety.
Adverse possession, see "Adverse Possession."
Licenses in respect to real property, see "Li-
censes," § 2.
Particular species of property, see "Animals":
"Fixtures"; "Logs and Logging"; "Mines and
Minerals."
Taking for public use, see "Eminent Domain."
Of bill or note, see "Bills and Notes," § 3.
PROXIMATE CAUSE.
Direct or remote consequences of injury, see
"Damages," § 1.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
A surety on an employé's bond held discharged See "Municipal Corporations," § 8.
by increase of risk by extension of employé's du-
ties.-Kellogg v. Scott (N. J. Ch.) 190.
§ 2. Remedies of creditors.
Statements of principal to one he was solicit- See "Municipal Corporations," § 10.
ing to sign bond as surety, in absence of the
payee, are not admissible against payee.-Hard-
wick Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Drenan (Vt.)
347.
Question whether conversation bringing no-
tice to agent was before or after transaction in
suit held for jury. - Hardwick Sav. Bank &
Trust Co. v. Drenan (Vt.) 347.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
See "Schools and School Districts," § 1.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY.
See "Waters and Water Courses," § 5.
Proof that goods of insolvent were sold by
corporation creditor's director at a sacrifice held
properly excluded, director acting as assignee in
insolvency, and not as director.-Hardwick Sav. Violation of injunction, see "Injunction," § 4.
Bank & Trust Co. v. Drenan (Vt.) 347.
mination of claims to estates in remainder and unnecessary.-Williams Val. R. Co. v. Lykens &
to quiet title to same, is constitutional.-Haley W. Val. St. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 46.
v. Goodheart (N. J. Ch.) 193.
RAILROADS.
See "Street Railroads."
Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Car-
riers.'
§ 1. Railroad companies.
Refusal of legislature to grant charter for rail-
road held not to bar right to petition under Pub.
St. c. 156.-In re Milford & M. R. R. (N. H.)
483.
§ 2. Right of way and other interests
Railroad company held not required to grade
entire width of city street.-Lake Shore & M. S.
R. Co. v. City of Franklin (Pa.) 583; City of
Franklin v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., Id.
Use of track in street as switch track held le-
gitimate.-Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. City
of Franklin (Pa.) 583; City of Franklin v. Lake
Shore & M. S. R. Co., Id.
§ 3. Construction,
equipment.
Erection of bridge over railroad at grade cross-
ing of city street ordered by railroad commis-
sioners held in pursuance of order, though
bridge was completed within time prescribed, and
was wider than layout of street.-New Haven
Steam Sawmill Co. v. City of New Haven
(Conn.) 229; Cannon v. Same, Id.
Where a railroad company, in removing a
grade crossing, closed a street on which plaintiff's
lot abuts, in compliance with an order of the
railroad commissioners, and did not proceed un-
der its charter (4 Priv. Acts, p. 1021, § 7), held,
plaintiff could not, under the charter, recover
resulting damages.-Newton v. New York, N. H.
& H. R. Co. (Conn.) 813.
Where a railroad company, to remove a grade
crossing, closed a street on which plaintiff's lot
abuts at a point not in front thereof, held, plain-
tiff could not maintain a private action, since
the injury was one in common with the public.-
Newton v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.)
813.
Under St. 1889, c. 216, requiring railroad com-
pany to fill frogs and guard rails on its track,
a company subsequently organized has reason-
able time after commencement of operation of
road to comply with such statute.-Gillin v.
Patten & S. R. Co. (Me.) 361.
Under Rev. St. c. 51, § 141, laborers employed
at monthly wages by railroad contractors need
not notify railroad company of nonpayment of
each month's wages within 20 days after end of
month, but only after completion of labor under
their employment.-George v. Washington Coun-
ty R. Co. (Me.) 377.
Rev. St. c. 51, § 141, authorizing laborers em-
ployed by railroad contractors to sue railroad
company for unpaid wages, includes laborers
employed by subcontractors.-George v. Wash-
ington County R. Co. (Me.) 377.
Laws 1893, c. 39, § 1, allowing railroad com-
missioners to apportion expenses for raising a
railroad bridge between a city and the railroad
company, and allowing the city no appeal, is not
unconstitutional.-Boston & M. R. Co. v. City of
Concord (N. H.) 808.
Where new road crosses existing road, courts
will, subject to regulations to be maintained at
expense of new road, permit grade crossing,
where it appears that trains on new road will
be run infrequently.-Trenton, L. & P. R. R. v.
Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (N. J. Ch.) 853.
Evidence held sufficient to justify a finding
that a grade crossing by a street railroad was
Ownership by a railroad of its right of way
gives no power to exclude a street railway, un-
der grant from the state, from crossing it on
a highway.-Williams Val. R. Co. v. Lykens &
W. Val. St. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 46.
Under Act 1871, §§ 1, 2, a decree permitting a
grade crossing by a street railroad must not be
granted on the presumptions arising from fail-
ure to furnish the burden of proof.-Williams
Val. R. Co. v. Lykens & W. Val. St. Ry. Co.
(Pa.) 46.
Under Act March 17, 1869 (P. L. 12), author-
izing any railroad to straighten or widen its
March 18, 1875 (P. L. 28), authorizing narrow-
lines, a railway company chartered under Act
gauge roads, cannot widen its gauge, as the pow-
er to widen refers to the right of way.-Western
New York & P. Ry. Co. v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry.
Co. (Pa.) 242.
the regulation of railway grade crossings by
Act June 19, 1871 (P. L. 1361), relating to
courts of equity, does not apply where the par-
ties have established a crossing and are using it.
-Western New York & P. Ry. Co. v. Buffalo,.
R. & P. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 242.
The directors of a railroad company chartered
under Act March 18, 1875 (P. L. 28), making
certain reductions as to the capital stock per
mile of railroads of a certain gauge, cannot, by
their own vote, widen the gauge.-Western New
York & P. Ry. Co. v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co.
(Pa.) 242.
A railroad company which has built its tracks
in a street above the natural surface thereof
need pay for only such additional expense in
providing drainage as results from the presence
of its tracks.-Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v.
City of Franklin (Pa.) 583; City of Franklin v.
Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., Id.
Under Gen. St. § 3554, the failure of an engi-
neer to keep the whistle "constantly" sounding
between the whistle post and the crossing does
not constitute negligence on part of the com-
pany employing him.-Tessmer v. New York, N.
H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 38.
A landowner is not chargeable with contribu-
tory negligence for reasonable use of his own
land, though his property thereon is destroyed by
fire set by locomotive. Boston Excelsior Co. v.
Bangor & A. R. Co. (Me.) 138.
tive, held, that plaintiff was justified in assum-
In action for fire set by defendant's locomo-
ing that defendant acquiesced in the occupation
of its right of way for storing the property de
stroyed.-Boston Excelsior Co. v. Bangor & A.
R. Co. (Me.) 138.
Where plaintiff occupies defendant's right of
way to store its goods by permission, the occu-
pation is lawful, and defendant's liability, with
respect to the injury by fire from locomotive, is
the same as if plaintiff was the owner of the
land.-Boston Excelsior Co. v. Bangor & A. R.
Co. (Me.) 138.
Evidence held to sustain finding of jury that
plaintiff was not guilty of negligence contrib-
uting to the loss by fire set by defendant's loco-
motives.-Boston Excelsior Co. v. Bangor & A
R. Co. (Me.) 138.
A railroad company held not liable for fright-
ening a horse by steam escaping from engine at
crossing.-Riley v. New York, P. & N. R. Co.
(Md.) 994.
Evidence held insufficient to show that defend-
ant railroad employés were responsible for turn-
ing on cylinder cocks of an engine, causing es-
cape of steam at crossing.-Riley v. New York,
P. & N. R. Co. (Md.) 994.
In action against railroad company, evidence
of previous care of deceased in crossing track
held competent.-Davis v. Concord & M. R. R.
(N. H.) 388.
In action against railroad company for per-
sonal injuries, rules of company held admissible.
-Davis v. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 388.
In action against railroad company for caus-
ing death of deceased while crossing track, held
question for jury whether deceased exercised
proper care and caution.-Davis v. Concord &
M. R. R. (N. H.) 388.
That person, before crossing railroad track,
did not look or listen for train, is not conclu-
sive of want of due care.-Davis v. Concord &
M. R. R. (N. H.) 388.
In action against railroad company for person-
al injuries, instruction as to reasonableness or
unreasonableness of speed of train at time of
accident held proper.-Davis v. Concord & M.
R. R. (N. H.) 388.
In action against railroad company for assault
committed by its conductor, held, evidence was
sufficient to entitle plaintiff to have case submit-
ted to jury.-Rowell v. Boston & M. R. R. (N.
H.) 488.
Admissibility of evidence showing notice of
approach of train given to person killed at rail-
road crossing determined.-Tyler v. Concord &
M. R. R. (N. H.) 524.
Failure of railroad company to give warning at
highway crossings held not to absolve traveler
from the duty of looking and listening.-Swanson
v. Central R. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 852.
Charter of city held not to empower council to
compel erection by railroad of safety gates at
crossings.-West Jersey & Seashore R. Co. v.
City of Bridgeton (N. J. Sup.) 848.
Of interest, see "Interest," § 1.
Of act of agent, see "Principal and Agent," § 2.
Of corporations in general, see "Corporations,"
§ 8.
§ 2. Report and findings.
Where a referee is ordered to report within 30
days, the filing of his report within that time
with the clerk of the court is compliance.-
Drown v. Hamilton (N. H.) 79.
Lines established by referee's report held to
be sufficiently certain.-Drown v. Hamilton (N.
H.) 79.
Failure by defendant to except to the exclu-
sion of evidence by a referee waives the right
to object to the report on that ground.-Drown
v. Hamilton (N. H.) 79.
A request for special findings of fact is not
seasonably made when it is sent to the referee,
two days after he files his report.-Drown v.
Hamilton (N. H.) 79.
A supplemental report of a referee is not ob-
jectionable because not filed within the time pre-
scribed for the original report, where it is based
upon the conduct of defendants at the trial.-
Drown v. Hamilton (N. H.) 79.
A referee's report, and the judgment thereon
establishing a boundary line, is binding on the
parties to the reference and those claiming un-
der them.-Drown v. Hamilton (N. H.) 79.
Objections to a referee's report on the ground
that damages given are excessive, and that the
report is generally against the law and evidence,
raise questions of fact.-Drown v. Hamilton (N.
H.) 79.
In passing on the findings of fact in a ref-
eree's report, the court inquires only into the
question whether the referee was moved by
passion or prejudice, or by clear mistake.-
Drown v. Hamilton (N. H.) 79.
The opposing party is entitled to a reasonable
notice of an intention to attack a referee's re-
port as being against the evidence, and is not
obliged to bring up any evidence to sustain it.--
Drown v. Hamilton (N. H.) 79.
The burden is on the party objecting to the
referee's report to show that it was the result
of passion, prejudice, corruption, or clear mis-
take.-Drown v. Hamilton (N. H.) 79.
On appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and
Error," § 10.
§ 1. Title to and possession of property.
REINCORPORATION.
Court appointing receiver held to have juris-
diction to determine to whom moneys collected See "Corporations," § 9.
by receiver belong.-Wallace v. Glasgow Inv.
Co. (N. H.) 175.
§ 1. Construction and operation.
An unsealed writing, executed by a child to
her grandfather for a consideration, relinquish-
ing all her "rights of dower and interests in his
estate," held insufficient as a release of her in-
terests as his heir, since she had no present in-
terest when it was executed.-Cass v. Brown (N.
H.) 86.
RELEVANCY.
Of evidence in civil actions, see "Evidence," § 3.
RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.
A pew holder has a right to occupy pew dur-
ing public worship only, and such right is sub-
ject to right of church society to change location
of meeting house.-First Presbyterian Soc. of
Antrim v. Bass (N. H.) 485.
The trustees of the majority members of a
church, voting for a change of location, held to be
the legal trustees of the original society, and the
holders of the equitable title of its property.-
Fair v. First M. E. Church of Bloomingdale (N.
J. Ch.) 866.
Title to property of congregation which is di-
vided is in that part, though a minority, which
is in harmony with its own laws and usages.-
Bose v. Christ (Pa.) 240.
Error in reasoning on the part of the court is
not sufficient to authorize grant of petition for
review.-Pickering v. Cassidy (Me.) 683.
A judgment is not subject to petition for re-
view because erroneous through imperfect data
furnished at the trial. Pickering v. Cassidy
(Me.) 683.
A review of judgment in real action will not
be granted, to let in evidence of surveyor's
Effect on jurisdiction of equity, see "Equity," marks and boundary line discovered after the
§ 1.
Of cause on appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal
and Error," § 18.
From office in general, see "Officers," § 1.
See "Landlord and Tenant," § 4.
Of statute, see "Statutes," § 5.
§ 1. Pleading and evidence.
Nonjoinder of co-plaintiff cannot be availed of
otherwise than by plea in abatement.-Brown v.
Ravenscraft (Md.) 170.
On reference, see "Reference," § 2.
trial, where they might have been discovered by
diligence before the trial.-Pickering v. Cassidy
(Me.) 683.
Rev. St. c. 89, cl. 7, § 1, authorizes reviews for
accidents or mistakes arising outside of petition-
er's control, or such as a reasonably prudent man
could not guard against.-Pickering v. Cassidy
(Me.) 683.
That unsuccessful litigant, after trial. has dis-
covered better evidence, which would probably
change the result, does not entitle him to peti-
tion for review. - Pickering v. Cassidy (Me.)
683.
REVOCATION.
Of will, see "Wills," § 2.
See "Easements."
Of railroads, see "Railroads," § 2.
RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
See "Waters and Water Courses," § 1.
Assumed by employé, see "Master and Servant,"
$ 5.
For instructions to jury in civil actions, see See "Vendor and Purchaser."
"Trial," & 5.
Of contract for sale of goods, see "Sales," § 2.
RESERVATIONS.
In deeds, see "Deeds," § 2.
In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 3.
RESIGNATION.
Of officer, see "Officers," § 1.
RESTRICTIONS.
In deeds, see "Deeds," § 2.
Of attachment, see "Attachment," § 6.
Of execution, see "Execution," § 6.
Of garnishment process, see "Garnishment," § 3.
Of record of proceedings for purpose of review,
see "Appeal and Error," § 7.
See "Appeal and Error"; "Certiorari"; "Jus-
tices of the Peace," § 3.
Of property of decedent under order of court,
see "Executors and Administrators," § 5.
On execution, see "Execution," 5.
On foreclosure of mortgage, see "Mortgages,"
$ 9.
§ 1. Construction of contract.
Contract granting patent rights and use of
machines held to give first party an option to
have the machines returned by making repay-
ment of original price, and not an unqualified
agreement to pay for machines returned at will
of second party.-Norfolk & N. B. Hosiery Co.
v. Arnold (N. J. Sup.) 192.
§ 2. Modification or rescission of con-
tract.
Complainant, after discovering the fraud by
which he had been induced to buy shares, as-
serted rights as a stockholder. Held, he could
not rescind the contract of purchase, but could
only bring action for damages.-Krueger v. Ar
mitage (N. J. Ch.) 167.
§ 3. Operation and effect.
Title of goods shipped in name of party intend-
ing to sell, with a draft attached to bill of lad-
ing, held not to pass to intended vendee before
payment of draft.-Hopkins v. Cowen (Md.)
1062.
A bill of sale not being an instrument requir-
ed by law to be recorded, a record of it is not
notice of sale to the creditors of the vendor.-
Janelle v. Denoncour (N. H.) 63.
Evidence held to show no change of possession
sufficient to constitute notice of sale to vendor's
creditors.-Janelle v. Denoncour (N. H.) 63.
4. Remedies of seller.
Where a purchaser of cattle by weight, to be
weighed in the seller's presence, took possession
|