THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
ACCOMPLICES.
See Criminal Law, § 511.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. See Compromise and Settlement; Mortgages, 319; Release.
See Appeal and Error, §§ 1117, 1203; Costs, 32; Evidence, § 354; Executors and Administrators, § 238; Insane Persons, § 42; Trial, 11.
I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.
III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLIDATION, AND SEVERANCE. $45 (Iowa) Creditors could sue for judgment against the debtor, and subject land fraudulently conveyed by him to his wife, in the same action.-First Nat. Bank of Wilmont, Minn., v. Eichmeier, 133 N. W. 454.
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. See Injunction, $$ 16, 84, 85; Quieting Title, § 4; Specific Performance, §§ 5, 43.
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.
See Attorney and Client, §§ 4, 9. ADMISSIONS.
See Evidence, §§ 201-265.
$ (S.D.) Adoption is not a contractual relation, and the laws of the place where it occurs are not controlling as to the status created.-Calhoun v. Bryant, 133 N. W. 266.
87 (Mich.) Under Comp. Laws, § 8777, subd. "d," a declaration of consent to an adop §tion executed by the president of a charitable organization which had delivered the child to its prospective parents four years after delivery held sufficient.-Ex parte Courtright, 133 N. W. 820.
(Mich.) Complaint held not to allege facts giving equity jurisdiction, in order to award an equitable accounting.-Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Etna Indemnity Co., 133 N. W. 515. 87 (Mich.) Facts held not to make a case for an equitable accounting.-Laubengayer v. Rohde, 133 N. W. 535.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
See Appeal and Error, § 662.
ACQUIESCENCE.
incident to the relationship of parent and child, $22 (S.D.) The right of inheritance is not and hence is not necessarily incident to the relationship of adoption.-Calhoun v. Bryant, 133 N. W. 266.
In view of Civ. Code, §§ 136, 137, held, that an adopting parent may inherit real property owned by the adopted child.-Id.
$25 (S.D.) The law of the place where an adoption occurs, while fixing the relationship, land situated outside the state.-Calhoun v. cannot fix the rights of the parties to inherit Bryant, 133 N. W. 266.
See Appeal and Error, § 878; Boundaries, § 48. See Bigamy; Contracts, § 128; Divorce, § 45.
See Dismissal and Nonsuit.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER
§ 4 (Iowa) The doctrine of adverse posses- See Pleading, §§ 85, 123, 358, 428. sion does not apply to municipalities.-John- son v. City of Shenandoah, 133 N. W. 761.
(F) Hostile Character of Possession. $ 64 (Iowa) Where plaintiff maintained pos- session of land in controversy under a parol gift from testator for 14 years without his ob- jection, it was too late thereafter for testa- tor's widow to set up an adverse title to the land.-Albright v. Albright, 133 N. W. 737.
$79 (N.D.) A deed by a county auditor of land sold to the state for taxes pursuant to Laws 1890, c. 132, §§ 86, 87, held color of title under Laws 1899, c. 158, relating to adverse possession.-Woolfolk v. Albrecht, 133 N. W.
See Appeal and Error, § 1024; Contempt; Evidence, 210; Executors and Administra- tors, 238; New Trial, §§ 150, 166.
AIDERS AND ABETTORS.-
See Criminal Law, § 59.
See Indians; Paupers, § 13.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
See Bailment; Carriers, § 321; Certiorari; Costs, 260; Criminal Law, §§ 162. 713. 1004-1178; Drains, §§ 382, 82: Elections,
305; Eminent Domain, §§ 238, 239, 253, 262; Exceptions, Bill of; Executors and Ad- ministrators, § 314; Habeas Corpus, § 113; Insane Persons, § 42; Justices of the Peace, S$ 145-174; Municipal Corporations. § 513; Taxation, 900; Trial, §§ 2, 53, 120, 255, 256, 295; Wills, § 386.
III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
(D) Finality of Determination. 870 (Minn.) An order denying a motion di- ment as either party might be entitled to held recting the clerk of court to enter such judg- not appealable.-Rase v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 133 N. W. 986.
$83 (Wis.) Order in proceedings under St. 1898, § 4096. providing for the examination of adverse witnesses before trial, held not a final order in a special proceeding, and not review- able.-Neacy v. Berger, 133 N. W. 580.
(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of Decision. $97 (Wis.) Order in proceedings under St. 1898, § 4096, providing for the examination of adverse witnesses before trial, held not an or- der affecting a provisional remedy, and hence not reviewable.-Neacy v. Berger, 133 N. W. 580.
§ 108 (Minn.) Order denying motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law held not appealable.-Rase v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 133 N. W. 986.
§ 109 (Minn.) An order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict, not cou- pled with the alternative motion for a new trial, is not appealable.-J. R. Watkins Medi-
See Divorce, §§ 200-249; Husband and Wife, cal Co. v. McCall, 133 N. W. 966. $ 295.
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. See Reformation of Instruments.
See Appeal and Error, §§ 108, 590, 643, 656, 888; Constitutional Law, § 6; Municipal Cor- porations, § 46; Pleading, § 395; Process, § 163.
§ 122 (S.D.) Defendant in condemnation held entitled to appeal from the part of the judg- ment fixing the amount of his damages, without appealing from the part awarding him costs. his right to which cannot be affected by his be- ing given a new trial by the appeal.-Belle Fourche Valley Ry. v. Belle Fourche Land & Cattle Co., 133 N. W. 261.
IV. RIGHT OF REVIEW.
(A) Persons Entitled.
§ 144 (Wis.) Appellant held to have no right to appeal.-American Food Products Co. v. Winter, 133 N. W. 595.
§ 151 (Wis.) In a proceeding under St. 1898,
See Carriers, §§ 205-230; Railroads, §§ 424, § 4096, held, that defendant as to whom action
§ 20 (Iowa) In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the offspring of domestic an- imals belong to the owners of the dams.- First Nat. Bank of Wilmont, Minn., v. Eich- meier, 133 N. W. 454.
was dismissed was not an "aggrieved party" within section 3048, giving a right of appeal only to such parties.-American Food Prod- ucts Co. v. Winter, 133 N. W. 595.
(B) Estoppel, Waiver, or Agreements Af- fecting Right.
§ 36 (S.D.) Evidence, in a prosecution under § 154 (Iowa) Where, pending appeal from Pol. Code, § 3020, for knowingly keeping, us- a judgment for defendant in a suit to recover ing, and controlling glandered horses, held suf-stock under an alleged gift, plaintiff instituted
proceedings in the probate court to recover | introduction on appeal.-Opsomere v. Opsomere, the same, such proceedings did not constitute 133 N. W. 518. an acceptance of the judgment so as to require a dismissal of the appeal.-Smith v. Meeker, 133 N. W. 1058.
194 (Neb.) Where parties on trial treat the allegations of new matter alleged in the answer as denied, Supreme Court will treat it SO though no reply appears.-Gruenther v. Bank of Monroe, 133 N. W. 402.
§ 203 (Iowa) Objection to the competency of a witness within Code, § 4604, to testify to com- munications with a decedent held waived.- Coleman v. Coleman, 133 N. W. 755.
§ 204 (Mich.) There is no reversible error in admitting evidence not objected to below. Brown v. Spiegel, 133 N. W. 618.
$215 (Iowa) Error in failing to number par- agraphs of instructions as required by Code, § 3708, held not available on appeal where there was a failure to object below.-Payne v. Water- loo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., 133 N. W. 781.
$215 (Minn.) Verbal inaccuracies in the in- structions, which are not called to the atten- tion of the court, will not be considered on appeal.-Brown v. Andrews, 133 N. W. 568.
§ 237 (S.D.) Where no motion was made by plaintiff to strike out alleged improper remarks of defendant's counsel and there was no ruling of the court, there is nothing before the ap- pellate court for review.-Kimm v. Wolters, 133 N. W. 277.
view upon appeal a ruling of the lower court to § 248 (Iowa) The Supreme Court will not re- which no exceptions are taken.-In re Culver's Estate, 133 N. W. 722.
§ 250 (Iowa) If anything more is involved in an appeal from a decree than the question of which party is entitled to recover on the facts and issues joined, exceptions must be taken.- In re Culver's Estate, 133 N. W. 722.
§ 259 (Iowa) Remarks of a court cannot be complained of as prejudicial on appeal, where no exception was taken thereto at the time.- Payne v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., 133 N. W. 781.
§ 260 (S.D.) A ruling on an admission to which no exception was taken at the trial can- not be reviewed.-First Nat. Bank of Wheaton, Minn., v. Miller, 133 N. W. 264.
§ 263 (Neb.) Alleged error in an instruction will not be considered where no exception was taken thereto.-Sabin v. Cameron, 133 N. W. 422.
§ 267 (Iowa) Exceptions to final decrees in equity cases are not necessary to a review on appeal.-In re Culver's Estate, 133 N. W. 722.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
§ 289 (N.D.) Errors in admitting testimony which are brought on the record through a statement of the case held reviewable without a motion for a new trial.-Russell v. Olson, 133 N. W. 1030.
§ 294 (Neb.) Motion for new trial held nec- essary mandamus to entitle defeated litigant to be heard on questions of fact in Supreme Court.-State v. Porter, 133 N. W. 189.
§ 294 (N.D.) Questions of fact cannot be reviewed on appeal from a judgment in any action tried by a jury, unless a motion for a new trial was made before the trial court.- Russell v. Olson, 133 N. W. 1030.
In the absence of a motion for a new trial, the finding of the jury upon a question of fact, where competent evidence was given pro and con, must be taken as final.-Id.
$ 301 (Neb.) Alleged error in an instruction will not be considered where no reference was made to it in the motion for new trial.-Sabin v. Cameron, 133 N. W. 422.
§ 216 (Wis.) Omission of the trial judge to § 301 (Neb.) In action at law, excess in re- refer to a particular material feature in in- covery should be called to the attention of structing concerning the evidence held not as- trial court by motion for new trial to be avail- signable as error, for want of proper objectionable on appeal.-Lowe v. Keens, 133 N. W. 1127. below. Secard v. Rhinelander Lighting Co., 133 N. W. 45.
§ 221 (Wis.) Any error of the trial court in compelling defendant to submit to a reduced verdict at plaintiff's election is not reviewable, in the absence of steps for review in the lower court, and in the absence of assignment of er- ror. Secard v. Rhinelander Lighting Co., 133 N. W. 45.
§ 231 (Wis.) The rejection of evidence on a general objection will not be reversed where the evidence was objectionable on any specific ground.-Rosenberg v. Sheahan, 133 N. W. 645.
§ 232 (Mich.) A defendant who procures the introduction of stenographers' notes made at a former trial of the cause, and does not object to the introduction by plaintiff of defendant's own testimony therein. cannot complain of such
VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE.
(A) Time of Taking Proceedings.
§ 347 (Iowa) An appeal taken within six months after the entry of the judgment of rec- ord is taken in time, though more than a year after its rendition.-Sievertsen v. Paxton-Eck- man Chemical Co., 133 N. W. 744.
(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice. 8 419 (Iowa) Mistake in notice of appeal from a single judgment in a case as to its date does not defeat jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.-Henderson v. Board of Sup'rs of Polk County, 133 N. W. 671, 672.
X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN RECORD.
(B) Scope and Contents of Record. § 534 (Mich.) Briefs not a part of the rec- ord cannot be considered.-Silfver v. Daenzer, 133 N. W. 16.
(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,
or Statement of Facts.
§ 544 (N.D.) In case not triable de novo on appeal, errors of law, not specified in settled statement of case, held not to be considered by the Supreme Court.-American Case & Register Co. v. Boyd, 133 N. W. 65.
§ 547 (Iowa) Incorporation in a motion for new trial of alleged improper language of op- posing counsel in argument held insufficient to make such language a matter of record. Swanson v. Ft. Dodge, D. M. & S. R. Co., 133 N. W. 351.
(E) Abstracts of Record.
§ 590 (Iowa) In the absence of any showing of want of diligence in the filing of an amended abstract, held that it would not be stricken from the record.-Swanson v. Ft. Dodge, D. M. & S. R. Co., 133 N. W. 351.
§ 590 (Iowa) Where the delay in filing an amendment to the abstract was not appellee's fault, and no prejudice resulted therefrom, the amendment should not be stricken because of such delay, if otherwise proper.-First Nat. Bank of Wilmont, Minn., v. Eichmeier, 133 N.
(H) Transmission, Filing, Printing, and Service of Copies.
$ 627 (Iowa) Appellant held not entitled to strike appellee's amended abstract, on the ground that it was not filed in time.-Fallon v. Amond, 133 N. W. 771.
§ 627 (Iowa) A motion to strike appellee's amended abstract will be denied; the abstract only being submitted as a basis for a motion to dismiss the appeal.-Heim v. Resell, 133 N. W. 881.
(I) Defects, Objections, Amendment, and
634 (Mich.) Because of defects in the bill of exceptions, briefs, and record, held, that causes in which they were filed must be strick- en from the docket.-In re Baluss' Estate, 133 N. W. 940.
§ 637 (S.D.) The Supreme Court may not dismiss an appeal and affirm the judgment merely because the bill of exceptions is fatally defective.-Bates v. Loffler, 133 N. W. 283.
§ 643 (Iowa) A motion to amend the certifi- cate attached to a shorthand report by show- ing certain facts therein held properly enter- tained, though made more than a year after entry of judgment; Code, § 4093, not apply- ing.-First Nat. Bank of Wilmont, Minn., v. Eichmeier, 133 N. W. 454.
§ 643 (Mich.) Under Pub. Acts 1909, No. 299, amended as to sections 4 and 6 by Pub. Acts 1911, No. 160, and chancery rule 37 (124 N. W. v), objections to the correctness and sufficiency of a case proposed for settlement be taken by proposing amendments thereto.- on an appeal from a chancery decree must Hamilton v. Wilcox, 133 N. W. 615.
§ 655 (S.D.) The error occasioned by omit- ting from the bill of exceptions settled by the court necessary and material evidence cannot be corrected by motion to strike the bill.- Bates v. Loffler, 133 N. W. 283.
Great delay in the settlement of the bill of exceptions is not ground for striking the bill from the record .on appeal.-Id.
The insufficiency of assignments cannot be presented to the Supreme Court on a motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the rec- ord.-Id.
§ 656 (Iowa) Evidence on a motion to amend the certificates attached to the short- hand report of the case held to require a find- ing that the certificates originally attached were detached by the reporter, and those now fastened to the notes inadvertently attached thereto, instead of the original certificates.- First Nat. Bank of Wilmont, Minn., v. Eich- meier, 133 N. W. 454.
$657 (Mich.) Where certain of plaintiff's exhibits which he had agreed to file were not filed and could not be found, defendant was not entitled to an order directing plaintiff to file them on pain of reversal.-Sullivan v. God- kin, 133 N. W. 481.
(J) Conclusiveness and Effect, Impeach- ing and Contradicting.
§ 662 (Iowa) A showing by the record that a defendant appeared by counsel held conclusive that service of notice of appeal was acknowl- edged by such defendant's attorney, as against a mere unsupported denial.-First Nat. Bank of Wilmont, Minn., v. Eichmeier, 133 N. W. 454.
(K) Questions Presented for Review.
§ 704 (Wis.) The charge, or any part of it not being in the bill of exceptions, held, an or- der setting aside a verdict as perverse cannot be disturbed on appeal.-Parkes v. Lindenmann, 133 N. W. 580.
(L) Matters Not Apparent of Record. $714 (Neb.) Appellate court held entitled to overlook absence from record of ruling on de- murrers, in view of the action of the parties. -Van Etten v. Leavitt, 133 N. W. 649.
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. $728 (S.D.) Assignments of error held_suf- ficient.-Belle Fourche Valley Ry. v. Belle Fourche Land & Cattle Co., 133 N. W. 261.
8761 (Mich.) Where an appealing party as- signs as error the unconstitutionality of a stat- ute, and by suggestion, rather than discussion, urges that such statute works a deprivation of property without due process, the appellate court will not seek for the infirmity in the stat- ute.-Anderson v. Henderson, 133 N. W. 14.
772 (S.D.) The Supreme Court denying a motion to strike the bill of exceptions held not authorized to allow respondent time to file a brief on the merits.-Bates v. Loffler, 133 N. W. 283.
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |