« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
(Appendix.) moral necessity." Where a belt in a mill, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. employing 200 persons broke on a Saturday through an unexpected defect, and could not See “Habeas Corpus." be repaired that day because gasoline could not be procured in a town of 3,000 inhabit. WRIT OF MANDAMUS. ants, the repairing of it Sunday morning, without which the mill would have to be See “Mandamus." shut down Monday, as, after the belt was glued, it had to dry 18 hours before it could WRIT OF PROHIBITION. be used, was a work of necessity, within the statute. State v. Collett (Ark.) 79 S. W. See “Prohibition." 791, 792, 64 L. R. A. 204 (quoting Shipley v. State, 61 Ark. 216, 219, 32 S. W. 489, 33 S. W. 107).
WRIT OF REVIEW.
The writ of review bears the same rela. WORSHIP.
tion to our system of civil procedure that the
writ of certiorari sustained to the common See “House of Worship.”
law, the name only of the latter having been changed by statute, and, like the ancient
mode of procedure, the modern writ merely WORTHY.
brings up the record. McAnish v. Grant, 74
Pac, 396, 397, 44 Or. 57. The word "worthy" is elastic in its meaning, according to the context in which A writ of review will lie only when the used. It may-perhaps, more exactly, does inferior court or tribunal has exceeded its mean virtuous, or of good standing, but its jurisdiction or exercised its functions ille restriction to such significance would be ab- gally or contrary to the course of procedure surd when used in a will enjoining the trus applicable to the matter before it. It cannot tees of a fund to select subjects worthy of be used as a substitute for an appeal, por assistance; would strain through a distorting can the mere error of an inferior court, offifilter this testator's bounty, in view of the cer, or tribunal, either of fact or of law, in situations which he evidently contemplated the exercise of rightful jurisdiction, be re as likely to surround its distribution. Krons- viewed or considered in such a proceeding. hage v. Varrell (Wis.) 97 N. W. 928, 930. Farrow y. Nevin, 75 Pac. 711, 713, 44 Or.
WRITTEN CONTRACT. See “Death Resulting from the Wound."
A "written contract" has been defined as
"one which in all its terms is in writing.” WRIT OF ERROR.
Bishop on Cont. (Enlarged Ed.) § 163. The
signature of both parties is not always a Appeal distinguished, see "Appeal."
necessary requisite to a written contract
National Cash Register Co. V. Lesko, 58 Atl A writ of error has been called an orig. 967, 968, 77 Conn. 276. inal writ, because it issued out of a reviewing court and was directed to the trial court; but it acts upon the record rather than upon
WRONG. the parties, removing the record into the supervising tribunal. The Supreme Court uity will not suffer wrong without a rem
The term "wrong," in the madim, "Eqdeclares it to be “rather a continuation of edy," has a significance which does not reach the original litigation than the commence violations of mere moral rights. Any other ment of a new action," Bristol v. United States (U. S.) 129 Fed. 87, 89, 63 C. O. A. 529. wrong is said to involve a corresponding pri
mary legal or equitable right, with an eq.
uitable or legal remedy, according to circumWRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS. stances, for the former, and an equitable
remedy for the latter. Harrigan v. Gilchrist, The function of a writ of error coram 99 N. W. 909, 933, 121 Wis. 127 (citing Pom. nobis “is to vacate a judgment in the court
Eq. Jur. 424). where it was rendered by bringing some fact to the knowledge of that court which was
WRONGFUL AOT. not previously known, and which, is known, would have prevented the rendition of the The term "wrongful act" as used in Judgment." On such a writ only such errors Rev. St. Idaho, $ 4100, providing that when of fact can be assigned as are consistent a person's death is caused by the wrongful with the record before the court in which act of another his heirs or personal representhe case was tried. Hadley y. Bernero, 78 tatives may maintain an action for damages S. W. 64, 67, 103 Mo. App. 549.
against the person causing the death, implies
(Appendix.] the omission of some duty, and that duty | YEAR. must be a duty owing to the decedent. It cannot be that if the death was caused by See "First Ten Years." rightful act, or an unintentional act, with no omission of duty owing to the decedent, When reference is made to a certain year it can be considered wrongful. The death the presumption is that the calendar year is of a free passenger on a railway train, not meant; but where a legislative body is actdue to the omission on the part of the railing under a constitution providing a fiscal way company of any duty owing to the de year different from the calendar year, its cea sed, cannot be considered wrongful, with fiscal legislation should be referred to the in Rev. St. Idaho, $ 4100. Northern Pac. R. fiscal year, and not to the calendar year. Co. V. Adams, 24 Sup. Ot. 408, 409, 192 U. State v. Jennings, 47 8. E. 683, 685, 68 S. C. S. 440, 48 L. Ed. 513.