Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Hamlin v. Baxter, 437.

Hancock v. Harper, 58.

v. Whýbark, 338.

Handy v. Handy, 435.
Hanna v. People, 117.
Hannibal & St. Joe R. R. v. Husen,

121, 170.
Hanson v. Fowle, 17.

v. Lawson, 40.

v. Walcott, 40.

Hare v. Gibson, 40.

Harlan v. St. L., K.C. & N. R. R., 229.

Harrington v. Fitchburg Mut. 'Ins.

Co., 447.

Harrington v. Stees, 421.

Harrisburg & Pot. R. R. v. Moore, 56.

Harrison v. Collins, 401.

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Davenport,

19.

Hartman v. Anderson, 435.

Haskell v. Jones, 241, 372.
Haskett Smith's Trusts, in re, 355.
Haskilt v. Elliott, 198.
Hathaway v. Wilson, 59.
Hawkeye Benefit & Loan Ass. V.

Blackburn, 466.

Hawkins v. United States, 214.

Hayes v. Stiger, 441.

Hays v. Boyer, 336.

Hazard v. Hall, 236.

Hearson v. Grandine, 196.

Henry v. Henry, 277.

Henshaw v. Root, 458.

Herries v. Nowell, 182.

Hester v. Com., 395.

Heuring v. Williams, 337.

Hicks v. McGarry, 397.

Hill v. Gray, 58.

Himrod v. Baugh, 87.

Hindhaugh v. Blakey, 433.

Hoag v. L. S. & M. S. R. R., 95.

Holcraft v. Mellott, 58.

Holden v. Stranahan, 415.

Hooker v. Gooding, 135.

Hooten v. Ransom, 415.

Horp v. Goewey, 158.

Horrigan v. First Nat. Bk., 75.

Howe Machine Co. v. Hadden, 446.

v. Simler, 336.

Hoyt v. Day, 98.

Hubbard y. Coban, 16.

v. Crawford, 254.

v. Switzer, 375.

Hughes v. H. & St. Joe R. R., 338.

Hunt v. City of Boonville, 295.

v. Hopkins, 115.

v. Spencer, 438.

Huntington v. Nat. Savings Bk., 414.

Hurdman v. Northeastern R. R, 367.

Hurt v. H. & St. Joe R. R., 338.

Hyde v. Supervisors of Kenosha Co.,

297.

[graphic]
[graphic]

Gallooley v. State, 136.

Gammon v. Knudson, 101.
Gans v. St. P. F. & M. Ins. Co., 137.
Gardner v. Matteson, 155.

v. Parmalee, 437.

Garland v. West, 478.

Gazette Printing Co. v. Morse, 435.

German v. Chapman, 62.

Bk. v. Stumpf, 415.

Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Thompson,

134.

Getchell v. Moran, 478.

Gibson v. City of Wyandotte, 418.

V. Gibson, 18.
Gilbert v. Collins, 417.
Gimble v. Stolte, 358.
Gyven, exr. v. Hilton, 194.

v. Kelly, 236.
Givens v. Merchants' Nat. Bk., 65.

v. Van Studdiford, 6.
Glass v. State Ins. Co., 174.
Glascock v. Glascock, 338.
Goddard v. Renner, 18.
Godfrey v. Brown, 158.
Gofrv. Supervisors of Outayamie

Co., 18.
Good v. Martin, 55.
Gorman v. Stanton, 256

v. Summers, 475.

in re, 365.
Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. v.Gray, 347.
Grand Rapids & 1. R. R. v. Heisel,

176.
Grand Rapids & I. R. R. v. Huntley,

377.
Grand Trunk R. R. v. Stevens, 207.
Grant v. Crow, 375.

v. Dabney, 138.

v. First Nat. Bk. of Monmouth,
414.
Green v. Kennedy, 434.
Greenwald v. Kaster, 374.
Greenwood v. Louisville, 120.
Gregg v. Hight, 433.
Grepel v. State, 118.
Gunsaulis v. Cadwallader, 397.

Ill. Cent. R. R. v. Hammer, 97.
Imperial Fire Ins. Co. v. Fargo, 54.
Indianapolis & St. Louis R. R. v.

Evans, 197.
Inman v. Tripp, 75.
Insurance Law Building Co. v. Nat.

Bk. of Mo., 175.
Ireland v. Horseman, 416.
Irwin v. Devvis, 115,

[ocr errors]

Eason v. State, 422.
Eastern Trans. Line v. Hope, 235.
Eaton v. Boissonnault, 181.

v. Trowbridge, 418.
Ederly v. Curtis,

356.

Edmunds v. Attorney-General, 481.

Edwards v. Allonez Mining Co., 177,

189.

Edwards v. H. & St. Joe. R. R., 277.

v. Kearzy, 391.
Ellett v. Richardson, 478.
Elliott v. Shaw, 296.
Emerson v. Patch, 216.
English v. Ozburn, 141.
Erie R. R. v. Stringer, 376.
Essex v. Hays, 415.
Estabrook v. Gebhart, 297.

[ocr errors]

Pacific R. R. v. Abel, 357.
Parker v. Peters, 478.
Pate v. Pate, 433.
Patscheider v. G. W. R. R., 275.
Patrick v. Jack, 439.
Patterson v. Carroll, 417.
Penn. R. R. v. People, 436.
Pennoyer v. Neff, 142, 252.
Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co.,

301.

People v. Allen, 158.

v. Graceland Cem. Co., 158.

v. Lilly, 176.

v. Midler, 176.

v. Mutual Gas Light Co. 176.

v. Royal, 475.

v. Wilson, 99.

Peterson v. Heffner. 254.

Phelan, Ass., v. Hazard, 109.

Phelps v. Couch, 416.

Phillips v. Holland, 217.

Phænix Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 76.

Pickup v. F. & M. Marine Ins. Co.,

433.

Pier v. Heinrichshofen, 285.

Pitts. Ft. Wayne & Ch. R. R. v. Val-

leley, 277.

Plumley v. Birge, 298.

Poirier v. Fetter, 358.

Pollock v. Cohen, 398.

v. Eastern R. R., 337.

v. Louisville, 120.

Pontious v. Durflinger, 254.

Poole v. Dyer, 39.

Poor v. Robinson, 77.

Pound v. Supervisors of Chippewa

Co. 19.

Powell v. Pac. R. R., 16.

Powers v. Provident Inst. for Say-

ings, 435.

Prathér v. Davis, 98.

v. Prather, 57.

Pratt v. Grand Trunk R. R. 56.

v. Pratt, 471.

Price v. Sanders, 477.

Prideaux v. City of Mineral Point,

429.
Prince v. Oriental Bank, 433.
Provost v. Gorrell, 261.
Pullis v. Robinson, 375.
Pullman v. Upton, 361.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Turnbull v. Payson, 54.

Turner v. Atwood, 478.

[ocr errors]

Union Bk. of Quincy v. Tutt, 237.

Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Mowry,

334.

Union Mut. Mar. Ins. Co. v. Howes,

138.

Union Nat. Bk. v. Roberts, 318.

Pacific R. R. v. Stewart, 241.
United States v. Brig Grace Lathrop

292.

United States v. Mann, 113.

v. State Nat. Bk. of

Boston, 334.

United States v. Two Hundred bar-

rels of Whisky, 94.

United States v. Van Auken, 462.

Wilcox, 113.

Express Co. v. Keifer,
Upham y. Dickenson, 176.
Usil v. Hales, 245.

295,

Sands v. Arthur, 195.
Saner v. Belton, 292.
Sanford v. Town of Portsmouth, 147.
Sargent v. S. & I. R. R., 376.
Scanlan v, Crawshaw, 215.
Schettler v. City of Fort Howard,
Schmidt v. Rose, 434.
Schneider v. Kolthoff, 398.
Schollenberger, ex parte, 442.
School Trustees v. Van Allen, 281.
Schoonover v. Reed, 38.
Schroeder v. Ch. R. I, & P, R. R., 47.

v. Crawford, 35.

Schulenburg v. Boothe, 115.

v. Hawley, 434.

v. Robinson, 375.

Schulter v. Adams Exp. Co., 175.

Seebold v. People, 116.

Semple v. Turner, 134.

Sengree v. Welch, 255.

Sexton v. Peck, 434.

Seymour v. Colburn, 18.

Shee v. McQuilkin, 336.

Sheen v. Hogan 136.

Shephard v. Rice, 498.

Sherwood v. Burns, 198.

Shields v. State, 173.

Shillaber v. Robinson, 414.

Short v. Stotts, 97,

Shumaker v. O'Brien, 358.

Seibel v. Siemon, 174.

Siegert v. Findlater, 395.

Silver v. St. L. & I. M. R. R., 294.

Simmons v. Cinn. Sav. Soc., 278.

Simpson v. Leech,

135.

v. State, 275.

Sims v. Field, 38.

v. Gray, 276.

Singer Mant'g Co. v. Saliers, 84.

Singerly v. Armstrong, 374.

Skilling v. Ballman, 479.

Slack v. Slack, 198.

Small v. C. R. I. & P. R. R., 310, 341.

Smith v. Eastern R. R., 356.

v. Elmert, 136.

v. Kirkpatrick, 136.

v. Lowell Man'g Co., 298.

v. Midland R. R., 95.

V. McNair, 139.

V. Snow, 298.

v. State, 175, 155.

Snyder v. Braden, 57.

Sossamon v. Pamlico Ins. Co., 267.

Sottomayor v, De Barros, 1.

Spafford v. Warren, 113.

Sparling v. Marks, 196.

Sprague v. Dun, 341.

St. Joe & Denver City R. R.v. Smith,

59.

St. Joe & Kas. L. & B. Ass. v. Thomp.

son, 119.

St. Joseph. The, 38..

St. Louis Ins. Oo, v. St. L. V. & T. H.

R. R., 194.

State v. Able, 96.

V. Addcock, 16.

V. Alexander, 183.

V. Arbo, 16.

v. Ashmore, 197.

v. Biddle, 100.

v. Bowman, 217.

v. Brown, 416.

v. Bunce. 357, 465.

v. Campbell, 437.

v. Christian, 115.

v. Citizens Ben. Ass., 491, 500.

v. Copeland, 57.

v. Coughlin, 157.

v. Cowell, 221, 403.

v. Culver, 96.

v. Deering, 416.

v. Doepke, 276.

v. Draper, 16.

v. Drive, 177.

v. Emmert, 197.

v. England, 217.

v. Estel, 396.

v. Fay, 96.

v. Fritteres, 134.

v. Geiger, 357.

v. Grant, 294.

v. Green, 115

Tainter v. City of Worcester, 408.

Tatum v. Curtis, 481.

Taylor v. De Bus, 356.

Taylor v. Parker, 18.

Teghtmeyer v. Mongold, 335.

Terrell v. Warren, 414.

Terry v. Anderson, 21.

Thomas & Sivyer, in re, 151.
Thompson v. St. Louis Ins. Co., 394.
Thompson's Case, 58.
Thorn v. Sweeney, 23.
Thornton v. Lewis, 397.
Thorpe v. N. Y. V. & H. R. R., 321.
Tisen v. Hanford, 58.
Toland v. Stevenson, 318.
Tomppert's Exrs. v. Tomppert, 66.
Tompson v. Fisher, 199.
Tonciay v. Toncray, 81.
Torrey v. Nixon, 137.
Towner v. Nash. & Lowell R. R., 237.

Town of Grayville v. Whitaker, 97.

" Jefferson v. People, 255.

Townsdin y. Nutt, 17.

Tranter v. Helphenstine, 301.

Trembly v. State, 437.

Trout v. Drawhorn, 38.

Trow v. Lovett, 156.

True v. Emery, 201.

The Central Law Journal. the purpose of protecting some property in

Portugal. The marriage was never consum

mated. In 1873 they returned to Portugal, SAINT LOUIS, JANUARY 4, 1877.

and continued to reside there. By the law of

Portugal the marriage was invalid, first cousins CURRENT TOPICS.

being within the prohibited degrees of consan

guinity. The wife brought a suit in the EnThe conflict of judicial opinion in regard to glish court, praying for a decree of nullity, on marriages between the white and black races

the ground that the marriage was void by the in Texas, which has been frequently referred

law of Portugal. On the hearing, Sir R. J. to in this journal (see 4 Cent. L. J. 588, 5

Phillimore held that the lex loci contractus must Cent. L. J. 2, 149), may be said to have ended

prevail, and that, as by the law of England by the decision of the court of appeals of that

the marriage was good and binding, the court state, in the case of Frasher v. State, 1 Tex.

was bound to uphold it. The petitioner apL. J. 132. The following propositions were

pealed, and the Court of Appeal has reversed declared by the court: 1. The statute of this decision, holding that the petitioner and Texas, passed in 1859, making it a felony for

respondent, as domiciled Portuguese subjects, a white person to marry a negro, is a valid ex

carried with them to England the incapacity to isting law, and is not in violation of the four

contract marriage with one another inflicted teenth and fifteenth amendments of the Con

on them by the law of Portugal; that the Enstitution of the United States, or the first sec

glish court was bound to recognize this incation of the civil rights bill. 2. Congress does pacity, and that a decree of nullity should be not possess the power, under the Federal Con

granted. stitution, to pass a law regulating and controlling the institution of marriage in the several In Doyle v. Harris, recently decided by the states of the Union. 3. Marriage is not a Supreme Court of Rhode Island, where a concontract protected by the Constitution of the tract for the sale of land provided for the payUnited States, or within the meaning of the

ment of the “ balance of the purchase-money'' civil rights bill. It is a civil status, left to the

at a time certain, and the court, from evidence discretion of the states, under their general which was conflicting, found that the time had power to regulate their domestic affairs. The been extended by agreement to a day certain, rights, obligations and duties arising from it and the vendee did not then pay, nor did he are not left to be regulated by the agreement claim that he had ever tendered the price and of the parties, but are matters of municipal demanded a deed, the court dismissed the regulation, over which the parties have no con vendee's bill for specific performance. Potter, trol. 4. The objection that the statute fixes a J., in delivering the opinion of the court, after penalty upon the white person alone, and none intimating that in this country the tender of a upon the negro, should be addressed to the deed by the vendee is unnecessary in order to legislature, and not to the judicial branch of put the vendor in default, said: "At law the the government.

vendee suing must show either a strict per

formance on his part, or a tender and refusal. A DECISION of much importance on the law of And in equity the party suing is not discharged the domicil as affecting contracts of marriage from performance any more than at law, exhas been announced by the English Court of cept in cases of accident or mistake on his Appeal, in Sottomayor v. De Barros. The case

part, or laches or default on the other side. arose on a petition to declare the marriage of He must show that he has not been in default petitioner with the respondent void. The peti- himself. Walker v. Jeffreys, 1 Hare, 341, tioner and respondent, Portuguese subjects 348, 352; Voorhees v. De Meyer, 2 Barb. and first cousins, went with their parents to

S. C. 37. Equity excuses actual performance reside in England, in 1858. In 1866, they

in some cases where it would have been of no went through the civil form of marriage before

avail, as where a tender would have been rethe register of the district of the city of Lon- fused. Fry on Specific Performance, $ 619; don. They were both infants at the time of

Hunter v. Daniel, 4 Hare, 420, 433. So in the ceremony, and they went through the form

cases of accident or mistake, or justifiable exat the earnest solicitation of their parents, for

cuse, where the other party suffers no injury. Vol. 6.–No. 1.

Longworth v. Taylor; 1 McLean, 395, 400, The same rule applies to promissory notes. 402. He must perform or show a readiness Byles on Bills, 134; Story on Promissory to perform, or some default of the other party Notes, $ 11; Geary v. Physic, supra; Closson which excuses him. McNeil v. Magee, 5 v. Stearns, 4 Vt. 11; Partridge v. Davis, 20 Mason, 244, 256 ; Fry on Specific Perform- id. 499; Brown v. Butchers and Drovers ance, $ 608 ; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 33; Wood v. Bank, 6 Hill, 443. So a book account made v. Perry, 1 Barb. S. C. 114, 131. And the in pencil was held admissible in evidence as a defendant's negligence can not excuse the book of original entries. Hill v. Scott, 2 Jones, complainant. Fry on Specific Performance, $ 169. In 1 Redfield on Wills, $ 17, pl. 2, it is 608. And if the court finds that there was a

said:

“The English statute of frauds exsufficient excuse; that the condition of the par- pressly required a will of lands to be in writing. ties and the value of the property remains un But it has been held that a will written in penchanged, and the same justice can be done, it cil instead of ink would be good.” Citing will grant relief. Longworth v. Taylor, 1 In re Dyer, 1 Hag. Ec. 219. That a will McLean, 305, 400, 402; opinion of Story, J., written in pencil may be valid was also ruled in in Taylor v. Longworth et al., 14 Pet. 172; Rhymes v. Clarkson, 1 Phil. R. 1; 2 id. 173. Doleret v. Rothschild, 1 Sim. & Stu. 590; In Main et al v. Ryder, 34 Leg. Int. 372, Crofton v. Ormsby, 2 Sch. & Lef. 583, 603; speaking of the signature of a testator, it was Benedict v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. 370; Scott said that the manifest object of the act is to v. Fields et al., 7 Ohio, 2d part, 90, and cases permit a will to be signed as any other written there cited.”

instrument may be signed. The court conThe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in

sidered the authorities to establish that a valid Myers v. Vanderbilt, 34 Leg. Int. 455, has just

will may be drawn with the same materials decided a point of some interest on the law of

that will suffice for the drawing of any writwills. Under a statute of that state declaring

ten contract. As was well said by Mr. Justhat “every will shall be in writing” it holds

tice Coulter, in Hill v. Scott, supra, they that a will written and signed in lead pencil is abundantly prove that a writing in pencil is valid. The statute, said the court, did not equivalent and tantamount to a writing in indicate the material on which it shall be writ

ink. The validity of a will written or signed ten, nor the instrument or materials with with a lead pencil was referred to, but left unwhich it shall be impressed. In Blackstone's decided, in Patterson v. English, 21 P. F. Com., book 11, p. 297, it is said: "A deed must

Smith, 454, but the opinion of Mr. Justice be written, or, I presume, printed, for it may

Williams contains a strong declaration against be in any character or any language; but it

the propriety of writing or signing in that must be upon paper or parchment. For if it

manner. The reason given against it, is the be written upon stone, board, linen, leather, facility with which the writing may be altered or the like, it is no deed.” Blackstone does

or effaced. Mercur J. : “ There is force in this not prescribe whether the writing shall be in suggestion. No prudent scrivener will write ink or in pencil. He stops with declaring the

a will in pencil, unless under extreme cirsubstances on which it shall be made. Writ- cumstances. Whenever so written, any aping is the expression of ideas by visible letters. pearance of alteration should be carefully It may be on paper, wood, stone or other ma scrutinized. Yet inasmuch as the statute is terials. The ten commandments were written silent on the question, we can not say the with the finger of God on tables of stone: Ex mere fact that it was written or signed in odus xxxi, 18. The general rule, undoubtedly pencil, thereby makes it invalid. It is nevis, that whenever a statute or usage requires a

ertheless a writing, known and acknowledgwriting, it must be made on paper or parch

ed as such by the authorities, and fulfills the ment; but it is not essentially necessary that requirement of the statųte.” it be in ink. It may be in pencil. This view is sustained by numerous authorities, as ap

ULTRA VIRES. plied to contracts generally. Chitty on Cont. In a recent case in the House of Lords, 72; Jeffery v. Walton, 2 Eng. C. L. R. 385; Riche v. Ashbury Rwy. Carriage Co., L. R., 7 Geary v. Physic, 11 id. 214; Merritt v. Clason, Eng. and Ir. App. 653, Lord Cairns began 12 Johns. 102; Clason v. Bailey, 14 id. 484. his opinion by saying: “The history and pro

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »