« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
JUSTICES' COURTS.-Code, § 1303, inapplicable
to appeals from. Roberts v. Davids (N. Y. Sup.).... 60
JUROR.-Previous conversation by, as to facts of case
not ground for challenge for cause. Un. Gold Min.
Co. v. Rocky Mt. Nat. Bank (U. S. Sup.)................
JURISDICTION-of U. S. Circuit Court. The U. S.
Circuit Court has not jurisdiction irrespective of
the citizenship of the parties unless case arises out
of law of United States; that a law of United States
must be construed, is not enough. Dowell v. Gris-
wold (U. S. Circ.)...
2.-Of Federal court; except under bankrupt law, Fed-
eral cannot enjoin action in State court. City of
Alexandria v. Fairfax (U. S. Sup.)...
3.-Of U. S. Circuit Court; suit between citizens of dif-
ferent States; foreclosure of mortgage; joinder
of parties. Omaha Hotel Co. v. Wade (U. S. Sup.), 161
1.--Judgment against non-resident without personal
service or appearance invalid, except as to property
then in State; State process served out of State does
not give jurisdiction. Pennoyer v. Neff (U. S. Sup.) 161
5.-Prerogative; executive cannot forbid citizen's plea ;
court can examine grounds of government inter-
vening in suit. Lee v. Kaufman (U. S. Dist.);
(note) 236; (C. T.)....
6.-May be acquired by service of process on attorney.
Levinson v. Oc. St. Nav. Co. (U. S. Circ.) (in full.).. 285
7.-General appearance of non-resident defendant gives.
Olcott v. McLean (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
8.-Judge interested in result of proceeding may act
when he has exclusive jurisdiction general drain-
age law of New York. In re Ryers (Ct. App., N. Y.) 333
9.-Federal court has over foreign corporation filling
stipulation under State law authorizing agent to re-
ceive process, by service on such agent. Fonda v.
B. Am. Assur. Co. (U. S. Circ.).
10.-Of State courts over offenses by officers of national
banks. Several cases (N. C.)...
11.-Court of Claims has, of claim for rebate of tax im-
properly refused by treasury officers. United States
V. Kaufman (U. S. Sup.)...
12.-Of State courts, against national banks for usury;
penalty; set off. Hade v. McVay (Sup., Ohio) (in full). 410
13. Of Federal Circuit Court over foreign insurance
corporations. Ex parte Shollenberger (U. S. Sup.)
14.-State courts have, of action by assignee in bank-
ruptcy. Kidder v. Horribin (Ct. App., N. Y.)...
15.-Divorce by Utah court between non-resident par-
ties invalid. State v. Armington (Sup., Minn.) (in
16. When Federal court has exclusive, of matters affect-
ing national bank. In re Duryea (U. S. Dist.)...... 472
See Bankruptcy, 80-89.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.-When landlord
must keep leased property safe for persons using it.
Nash v. Minn. Mill Co. (Sup., Minn.)...
LATERAL SUPPORT. Twenty years open enjoy-
ment of, raises presumption of grant of. Angus v.
Dalton (Eng. Q. B. D.) (N. C.)..........
LEASE.-Lessor accepting assignee of lease as tenant,
does not relieve lessee from covenant for rent.
Hunt v. Gardner (Sup., N. J.) (N. C.)..
2. Tenant recovering for value of use and occupation
of leased premises after eviction liable for rent.
Knox v. Hester (Ct. App., N. Y.).......
3.-Assignment of lease and acceptance of assignee as
tenant does not bar action against former tenant
for rent. Hunt v. Gardner (Sup., N. J.)..
4.-Surrender. New lease to operate as, must be valid:
agreement to reduce rent does not constitute new
lease. Coe v Hobby (Ct. App., N. Y.)...
5.-Rights of lessee under, when dependent upon per-
formance of covenant on his part; estoppel and
waiver, what constitutes. People's Bank v. Mitchell
(Ct. App., N. Y.)..
6.-Fraudulent lease does not create relation of land-
lord and tenant. Bidwell v. Evans (Sup., Pa )...... 513
7.-Covenant not to assign not usual one in. Hamp-
shire v. Wichins (Eng. Ch. D) (in full).
See Bankruptcy, 91, 92.
LIBEL.-Statements in pleading without malice not
actionable. Lanning v. Christy (Sup., Ohio) (N. C.). 78
2.-Calling person "convicted felon" libelous if he has
suffered sentence therefor, or received pardon.
Leyman v. Lattemer (Eng. Ex. D.)....
3.-Report of ex parte proceedings before magistrate
not. Usell v. Hales (Eng. C. P. Div.) (note)..
4.-Criminal prosecution for, publication by editor of
newspaper without knowledge of proprietor; what
constitutes knowledge under English statute.
Queen v. Holbrook (Eng. Q. B. D.).
5.-Words actionable per se, "dirty reform politician,"
smells bad," etc. Cottrill v. Cramer (Sup., Wis.). 251
6.-Privilege; report of ex parte judicial proceedings,
where complaint is dismissed, privileged Usell v.
LICENSE.-To lay railroad in highway not presumed
because land-owner favors railroad; given may be
revoked. Murdock v. P. P. & C. J. R. R. Co. (Ct.
App., N. Y.).......
LIEN.-Warehouseman issuing negotiable warehouse
receipts has only, for charges on specific grain as to
innocent holder for value. White v. Hoyt (Ct. App.,
2.-Not allowed against trust estate for work done on
credit of trustee. New v. Nicoll (Ct. App., N. Y.).... 293
LIFE INSURANCE.-Forfeiture; waiver agent
not authorized to, cannot waive forfeiture from non-
payment. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Norton
(U. S. Sup.).....
2.-Estoppel; representations of agent that premium
need not be paid when due, or that insured will be
notified, do not bind company contrary to terms of
policy. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mowrey (U.
3.-Forfeiture must be at once asserted by company or
is waived. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. French (Sup.,
Ohio.) (N. C.)..........
4. Non-payment caused by failure of company to notify
as to place of payment does not cause. New York
Life Ins. Co. v. Eggleston (U. S. Sup.) (in full.)......... 368
5.-Suicide; condition against; not broken if insured is
insane. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Groom (Sup.,
Pa.) (N. C.)..
6.-Non-forfeiting policy; rights of insured under;
construction of policy; cancellation. Chase v.
Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co. (Sup., Me.)...
7.-Surrender by husband whose life is insured in favor
of wife, not valid without consent of wife. Still-
well v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., New York (Ct. App.,
8.-Non-payment of premiums; equity will prevent sac-
rifice of, of interests of insured. Dongan v. Mutual
Benefit Life Insurance Co. (Ct. App., Md.) (N. C.).. 459
9-Estoppel; when company by conduct may not in-
sist on conditions forfeiting policy; tender of pre-
miums not necessary to keep alive policy after fre-
quent refusals to receive. Meyer v. Knickerbocker
Life Ins. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.)..........
10.-Representations; a representation on the 1st of
October, that insured is in good health, is not a con-
tinuing one, so as to avoid a renewal given on Octo-
ber 14th, a change having taken place in health.
Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Higginbotham (Sup.
Ct., U. S.) 16; (in full)...
11.-In issue of paid-up policy premium notes cannot
be deducted from amount of policy. Brooklyn Life
Ins. Co. v. Dutcher (U. S. Sup.)
12.-Benefit of new policies issued in place of old one
surrendered inures to party entitled to benefit of
old ones. Barry v. Brune (Ct. App., N. Y.)........
13.-Policy in northern company held in confederate
States, tender of premium to agent in confederate
States, not effectual to keep alive policy. New York
Life Ins. Co. v. Davis (U. S. Sup.) (in full)...
14.-Insurance company cannot maintain action against
one wrongfully killing insured person.
Life Insurance Co. v. Brame (U. S. Sup.) (in full)....
15-Payment of premiums to agent after revocation of
authority by one without notice, valid. South. Life
Ins Co. v. McCain (U. S. Sup.)...
LOTTERIES.-Constitutional provision forbidding,
does not affect former grants. State v. Miller,
(Sup. Mo.) (in full).........
MAILS.-Congress may exclude specified matter from,
but may not authorize opening sealed packages for
evidence. Matter of Jackson (U. S. Sup.) (in full).. 448
MALT LIQUOR.-What is, question of fact for 390
jury. State v. Starr (Sup., Me.)...
2.-Lager beer presumed to be. State v. Goyette (Sup.,
MANDAMUS.-Rules governing allowance of, return
to appeal from canal board may be compelled by.
People v. Canal Appraisers (Ct. App., N. Y.).....
MARRIAGE.-Evidence of, general conduct and
reputation enough. Procter v. Bigelow (Sup., Mich.)
(N. C.) 278; (in full)...
2.-Conflict of law, marriage null by law of domicile of
parties when invalid if made elsewhere. Sottomayer
v. De Barros (Eng. Ct. App.)......
MARRIED WOMEN.-A married woman's estate
is liable on a promise to repay money advanced to aid
her in obtaining such estate Harrington v. Robert-
MARINE INSURANCE.-Loss caused by collision
between ships of same owner gives underwriters no
claim against fund paid into court. Simpson v.
Thompson (Eng. H. L.).............
MARITIME LAW.-Contract for the use of a wharf
by vessel owner is maritime and enforceable in rem.
Ex parte Easton (U. S. Sup.) (in full)
2.-A tug towing a barge is liable for want of skill. East.
Transp. Line v. Hope (U. S. Sup.)...
3.-Limit of liability of ship-owner and stipulators
stated. Sparrow v. Avery (U. S. Sup.)....
4. Owners of cargo saved from lost ship must contri-
bute toward life salvage. The Specie ex Sarpedon
(P. B. & Adm. D., Eng.)..
5.-Collision; vessels in motion must keep out of
way of vessels at anchor. Steamtug Ehrman v.
Curtis (U. S. Sup.)......
6.-Collision; innocent parties entitled to full compen-
sation, except there is inevitable accident. Steam-
tug Ehrman v. Curtis (U. S. Sup.)..
7.-Partnership firm cannot libel vessel owned by its
members. The Benton (U. S. Dist.) (N. C.)..
8. Statutory construction of acts relative to agree-
ments of seamen. U. S. R. S., § 4511. United States
v. Brig Lathrop (U. S. Sup.).
9.-Collision; facts constituting negligence in manage-
ment of boat. Carpenter v. East. Tr. Co. (Ct. App.,
10.-Light on vessel, temporary extinguishment of, no
violation of statute requiring In re Eclipse (U. S.
11.-Collision; defense, freedom from fault good; rule
as to compensation. Steamboat v. Redeout (U. S.
12.-Shipowners, law limiting liability of, applicable to
foreign vessels. Levinson v. Oc. St. Nav. Co. (U. S.
Circ.) (in full)...
13.-Owner of ship managing is liable for negligence of
captain trading independently and rendering a
share o profits. Steel v. Lester (Eng. C. P. D.).
14.-Collision, rules for avoiding applied; common law
rule as to negligence applied. Lord v. Hazeltone
15.-Bottomry bond, may be given on cargo as well
as ship; discharge of loan if utter loss of vessel
occurs requires total loss. Del. Mut. S. Ins. Co. (U.
R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.).......
6.-Negligence of fellow servant gives no cause of action
to servant against master; need not be employed in
same particular work; "mining boss" and "driver
boss are fellows. L. V. Coal Co. v. Jones (Sup.,
MINING.-Mine owner not liable to adjoining owner
for natural overflow of water. Fletcher v. Smith
(Eng. H. L.)....
MISTAKE.-Must be of fact not of law to authorize
recovery of money paid. Lambert v. Co. of Dixon
(U. S. Sup.)....
MASTER AND SERVANT.-A master is liable
to compensatory but not punitory damages for un-
authorized willful act of servant, and for punitory
when he authorizes or ratifies the act. Bass v. C.
& N. W. Ry. Co. (Sup., Wis.)...
2.-Master must furnish safe machinery, but knowledge
that machinery is not safe precludes employee from
recovering for injury thereby. Tol. Wab. & W. Ry.
Co. v. Asbury (Sup., Ill.)...
3.-Contract to float logs does not create relation of.
Town of Pierpont v. Loveless (Ct. App., N. Y.)..
4.-Common employment, joint railroad station em-
ployees. colaborers so as relieve employers from lia-
bility for negligence of servants. Swanson v. N. E.
Ry. Co. (Eng. Ct. App.)...
5.-Master must furnish safe machinery; defective rail-
road track; engineer traveling over, not presump
tively defects. Mehan v. S. & B.
Stually on natantially in nossession
MORTGAGE.-Intended as continuing security for
future indebtedness valid. Brown v. Kiefer (Ct.
App., N. Y.).....
2.-Priority of security not affected by after promise to
pay gold. Wallace v. Loomis (U. S. Sup.)...
3.-Assumption of, taking subject to, without further
words, not an assumption. Fish v. Tolman (Sup.,
-Absolute conveyance to secure loan is; power of
sale under, must be followed strictly sale on less
notice than mortgage and statute requires void;
accounting by vendor to innocent purchasers. Shel-
laber v. Robinson (U. S. Sup.)....
5.-Construction of an agreement in not to call in
principal on punctual payment of interest; waiver.
Keene v. Biscoe (Eng. C. D.)..
6.-Absolute deed may be shown to be by parol. Peugh
v. Davis (U. S. Sup.)......
8.-Discharged from record by mistake may be rein-
stated and lien preserved. French v. Stone (Sup.,
Mich.) (N. C.).....
9.-Mortgagor cannot create charge on lands superior
to mortgage. Saunders v. Dunman (Eng. Ch. D.).. 472
10.-Note of married woman binding separate estate is
not. Third Nat. Bank v. Blake (Ct. App., N. Y.).. 511
MUNICIPAL BONDS.-The presumption exists
that they were issued with authority and are valid.
County of Macon v. Shores (U. S. Sup.)..........
2.-Limit of taxation in act authorizing issue of, does
not bind holder of bonds. United States v. Clark
Co. (U. S. Sup.)....
3.-Bonds in aid of a private toll bridge are for public
purpose. Commissioners of Dodge v. Chandler (U.
4.-Vote for, without authority of statute, does not au-
thorize issue, and Legislature cannot afterward make
it valid. Barnes v. Lacon (Sup., Ill.)...
5. Voidable bonds valid in hands of bona fide holder, void
bonds not; bona fide holder bound by recitals.
Barnes v. Lacon (Sup., Ill.).
6.-Bonds issued by order of county court without author-
ity of town, invalid in every one's hands. County of
Bates v. Winters (U. S. Sup.).
7.-Appearing on their face to be issued in violation of the
statute authorizing them, void in hands of any holder,
and the Legislature cannot make them valid. Horton
v. Town of Thompson (Ct. App., N. Y.)...
See Constitutional Law, 31.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.-Liability for
flooding. Inman v. Tripp...
2.-After a contract for street improvements is made, the
city has no right to alter it by ordinance. Addis v.
City of Pittsburgh (Sup., Pa.)..
3.-Ordinance of, must be within the power delegated to
city; regulating standard of weights and measures.
City of Chicago v. Meker (Cook Co. Cr. Ct.) (N. C.).....
4.-Liable for injury from defective sidewalk put down by
land-owner. Čity of Marquette v. Cleary (Sup.,
5.-City of Brooklyn; when common council agent of State
and not of city, city not liable for neglect of duty.
N. Y., etc., Lumber Co. v. City of Brooklyn (Ct. App.,
6.-Negligence; liable for act of servant in doing work for
private property owner. Hall v. Mayor (Eng. Q. B.
4.-Trial of matters affecting, when it should be in Fed-
eral courts. In re Duryea (U. S. Dist.).......
5.-National currency act liberally construed, forfeit-
ures not favored; usury will not be raised out of
reasonable charge for exchange. Wheeler v. Un.
Nat. Bank (U. S. Sup.)..
6. Mortgage to, note of married woman binding sep-
arate property is not. Third Nat. Bk v. Blake (Ct.
App., N. Y.)...
See Bank Taxation, 4, 5; Usury, 5.
NATURALIZATION –Chinese not. entitled to.
7.-Not liable for personal injury to pupil from defective
public school building. Hill v. City of Boston (Sup.,
Mass.) (N. C.)...
8.-Powers conferred in city common council cannot be
delegated to agent. Birdsall v. Clark (Ct. App., N.
9.-Negligence of; defective highway; no liability for in-
jury to one horse racing. McCarthy v. City of Port-
land (Sup., Me.).....
11.-Street with precipitous depression of some feet is un-
safe, as matter of law; city negligent and liable for
injury from, though without funds to repair. Pere-
deaux v. C. of Mineral Pt. (Sup., Wis.).
12.-Power of; if authorized by charter, may close liquor
saloons at 10 P. M Prest. of Platteville v. Bell (Sup.,
13. Not liable for failure to furnish water to extinguish
fires. Taintor v. City of Worcester (Sup., Mass.) (N.
14.-Cohoes construction of charter of, as to local elections.
People v. North (Ct. App., N. Y.)
15.-Negligence by; must keep public places safe for un-
manageable animals. Kennedy v. Mayor of N. Y.
(Ct. App., N. Y.)
See Constitutional Law, 32, 33; New York City.
NATIONAL BANK.-Indebtedness to, for more than
one-tenth of capital stock, recoverable; estoppel.
Union Gold M. Co. v. Roch. M. Nat. Bk. (U. S. Sup.) 131
2. Transfer of shares. A shareholder has power to trans-
fer shares and directors cannot refuse to register trans-
fer. Johnson v. Laflin (U. S. Circ.) (C. T.) 117; (in
NAVIGABLE STREAM.-Riparian owner cannot
appropriate. Moore v. Jackson (2 Abb. N. C.) 211;
2.-Owner of adjoining land above obstruction, not en-
titled to action for. Blackwell v. O. C. R. R. Co.
(Sup., Mass.) (N. C.)...
See Constitutional Law, 34, 35; Reparian Rights; Water Course.
NEGLIGENCE.-Boarding-house keeper liable to
guests for negligence of servants in care of prop-
erty. Smith v. Read (N. Y. C. P.)....
2.-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. In order to avoid a
recovery on the ground of contributory negligence
the plaintiff's negligence must have directly con-
tributed to the injury; facts constituting. Balti-
more & Port. R. R. Co. v. Jones (Sup. Ct., U. S.)... 16
3.-Neglecting endangered property to save life not
negligence contributing to loss of property. East.
Transp. Line v. Hope (U. S. Sup.).
4.-Proof of contributory, in defendant. Mallory v.
Griffey (Sup., Pa.)
5. As a rule, degree of care required in crossing a rail-
road track question for jury. Dolan v. Del. & Hud.
Canal Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.).
6. Neglecting to use all senses when about to cross a
railroad, contributory negligence. Chi. R. I. & P.
R. R. Co. v. Houston (U. S. Sup)
7.-Rule as to adults not applicable to infants; sending
child six years old with older one across railroad
track not. Chi. & A. R. R. Co. v. Becker (Sup.,
8. When death is by a wrongful act of defendant, con-
tributory negligence no defense. Matthews v. War-
ner (Sup. Ct. App., Va.).....
9. Passenger on railroad; not contributory, to ride in
a caboose car. Creed v. Penna. R. R. Co. (Sup., Pa.)
17.--DAMAGES. No damages can be recovered for death
where killing is in self-defense. March v. Walker
10. Slight, will not prevent recovery. Griffin v. T. of
Willow (Sup., Wis.).
11.--Of driver of private carriage imputable to owner.
Priedeaux v. C. of Mineral Pt. (Sup., Wis.).
12. Crossing in front of moving train is. Grows v. Me.
Lynch v. Mc-
Cent. R. R. Co. (Sup., Me.)..
13.-Offering dog at large candy is not.
Nally (Ct. App., N. Y.)
14.--Defense in action against railroad for animal killed.
Curry v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (Sup., Wis.)................
15.-Attempts to preserve one's own property when in
danger is not; exercising reasonable prudence is
not. Rexter v Starin (Ct. App., N. Y.)
16.-Railroad killing cattle; turning cattle in fleld defect-
ively fenced is. Dayt. & M. R. R. Co. v. Miama
Co. Inf. (Sup. Com., Ohio)
18. EVIDENCE. Firing neighboring building by sparks
from stove; evidence of. Briggs v. New York Cent.,
etc., R. R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.).
19.-FACTS. When rule as to dependent upon facts of
case. Jackson v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (H. L.)
20. INDIRECT CONSEQUENCES. Wrong-doer liable for
consequence of act caused by third person. Clark
v. Chambers (Eng. Q. B. D.) (N. C.) 458; (in full).... 505
21.-PUBLIC OFFICER not liable for in discharge of
official duty. Brennan v. Guard of Limerick (Ir. Q.
B. D.) (N. Č.).
22.-RAILROAD. Absence of flagman usually stationed
at street crossing is negligence. Dolan v. Del. &
Hud. Canal Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.)...
23.-Trains running where stock is at large at high rate
of speed is; through towns faster than legal rate is;
leaving stock at large is not contributory negligence.
Chi. & A. R. R. Co. v. Engle (Sup., Ill.).
24.-Trains running faster than legal rate is. Chi. &
A. R. R. Co. v. Becker (Sup. Ill.).
25.-Backing train; overshooting platform at station
without notice is; passenger attempting to leave
train overshooting platform is not negligent. Taber
v. Delaware, etc., R. R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
26.-Company liable to passenger for injury from dan-
gerous stairway in station. Beard v. Conn. & P. R.
R. R. Co. (Sup., Vt.) (N. C.).....
27.-Station platform being icy is; going on platform
not contributory. Weston v. N. Y. E. R. R. Co. (Ct.
App., N. Y.)..
28.-Porter shutting carriage door upon hand of pas-
senger not. Maddox v. L. C. & D. Ry. Co. (Eng. C.
P. D.) (N. C.)..
29.-RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR. Contractors with city
.liable for negligent acts rendering city responsible;
evidence. City of Rochester v. Montgomery (Ct.
App., N. Y.)..
30.-City liable for act of company constructing public
water works. Butler v. City of Bangor (Sup., Me.)
452; see, also, City of Erie v. Caulkins (Sup., Pa.).
31-SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANIES. Evidence of negligence.
Safe Deposit Co. v. Pollock (Sup., Pa.) (in full). 288
32.-SURFACE WATER from streets. Wakefield v. New
(Sup., R. L.)
Gramlich v. Wurst (Sup.,
vation cannot recover.
Pa.) (N. C.)....
34.-USER. Decay of wire fence; death of cattle caused
by pieces of; taken while grazing, gives right of
action. Ferth v. Bowling Iron Co. (Eng. C. P. D.).. 256
35.-USER OF LANDS. Liability of owner of land for
damages caused by negligent user of; artificial
mound; throwing water on neighbor's land. Hurd-
man v. N. E. Ry. Co. (Eng. Ct. App.) (in full)..
See Act of God; Animals; Carrier of Passengers; Master
and Servant; Municipal Corporations; Proximate and
made by indorser with maker; not admissible to
impeach presumptive contract against bona fide
holder. Brown v. Spofford (U. S. Sup.) (in full)....
2.-Bill of exchange; what drawer of, may recover from
acceptor dishonoring. Re Gen. So. Am. Co., etc.
(Eng. Ch. Div.)
3-Check transferred 14 months after date, sufficient to
put transferee in inquiry; what sufficient to relieve
from further inquiry; bankruptcy. Cowing v. Alt-
man (Ct. App., N. Y.)..
4.-Possession of bank check by rightful owner without in-
dorsement of payee does not authorize payment; cus-
tom does not alter rule. Dodge v. Nat. Exch. Bk. (Sup.
5.-Bonds. Municipal bonds with over due coupons, not
dishonored paper, so as to let in defense against bona
fide holder; rights of such holder; purchaser for less
than par may recover. Cromwell v. County of Sac (U.
S. Sup.) 252; (in full.).
6.-Failure of independent consideration not defense to.
Brice v. Carter (Ct. App., N. Y.)...
7.-Indorsement; unauthorized interference of postal au-
thorities preventing presentment for payment does not
release indorser. Pier v. Heinrichshofen (Sup., Mo.).. 315
8. Stolen securities; purchaser in good faith protected. D.
M. Ins. Co v. Hatchfield (Ct. App., N. Y.)......
9.-Indorsement of, by bankrupt after bankruptcy valid.
Hersey v. Elliot (Sup., Me.) (N. C.)...
10.-Holder for value, transferred on payment for prece-
dent debt not. Potts v. Meyer (Ct. App., N. Y.)... 475
11.-Note with place of payment left blank to be filled in.
Woodward v. Green (Sup. App., Va.)...
12.- Township warrants to bearer are not. Tp. of E.
Union v. Ryan (Sup., Pa.)
13.-Indorsement; when subsequent one discharges prior.
Howe Mach. Co. v. Hadden (U. S. Circ.).
See Bank Check; Bankruptcy, 23, 24, 128; Bill of Ex-
change; Indorsement; Promissory Note; Suretyship, 14.
NEW YORK CITY.— Removal from police force;
"conduct unbecoming an officer;" title to office. Peo-
ple v. Bd. of Police (Ct. App., N. Y.)
2.-Ordinance of Board of Health forbidding sale of adul-
terated milk, held valid. Kolinsky v. People (Ct. App.,
N. Y )...
3.-Removal of subordinate employee of city without cause,
allowed. People v. Fire Com`rs (Ct. App., N. Y.)..... 434
NUISANCE.- An increased noise and vibration caused
by increase of machinery entitles to injunction.
Heather v Parden (Eng. Ch. D.)
2.-Owner renting house for bawdy house, liable to adjoin-
ing owners; rule of damages. Givens v. Van Studde-
ford (Ct. App., St. Louis)...
3.-Claim that it is necessary to enable performance of
duties imposed by law, no justification. Attorney-Gen-
eral v. Gas Co. (Eng. Ch. Div.)........................
OFFICER.-Notice must be taken of authority of.
Hawkins v. United States (U. S. Sup.).....
2.-Deputy clerk of Federal Court not employee of gov
ernment. United States v. Meigs (U. S. Sup.)..
3.-Paid in fees cannot charge public for wages paid assist-
ants. Hartwell v. Milwaukee (Sup., Wis.)
PARDON.-Conditions may be annexed to and enforced.
Arthur v. Craig (Sup., Iowa.) (N. C.)........
PARENT AND CHILD.-Parent not liable for main-
tenance of infant by volunteer. Tincray v Tincray
PARTIES.-In foreclosure claimant adverse to mort-
gagor, is not. City of Alexandria v. Fairfax (U. S.
2.-Defect of, when defense of defect of parties plain-
tiff will not lie; trust; specific performance. Bis-
sell v. Heyward (U. S. Sup )...
3.-Foreclosure action, construction of 2 R. S. 191, $8
152-154. Scofield v. Dosher (Ct. App., N. Y.).. 415
4.-Town, action against ex-supervisor for failure to
account for town moneys must be in name of town
are liable for each
other's torts in partnership business. But partner sell-
ing his interest in firm not liable for misrepresenta-
tion by copartner. Schwabacker v. Riddle (Sup., Ill.) 92
2.-Debt owing to firm cannot be applied to pay indi-
vidual partner's indebtedness. Cotzhausen V. Judd
3.-Dissolution; each partner may use trade name.
Condy v. Mitchell (Eng. Ct. App.
4.-Agreement for, not completed does not constitute.
Meyer v. Schacher (Eng. Ch. D.)...
5.-Attachment and execution against one partner in firm
debt, does not hold firm property. Staats v. Bris-
tow (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
PAYMENT.-Of less than claimed on unliquidated
debt if accepted discharges debt; claim against gov-
ernment. Baird v. United States (U. S. Sup.)..
2.-Promissory note, acceptance of new note of firm
then dissolved by death for valid old note of firm
does not cancel old note. First Nat. Bk. v. Morgan
(Ct. App., N_Y.)......
3.-On note not indorsed thereon will be allowed, not-
withstanding stipulation to the contrary. Kasson
v. Noltner (Sup., Wis.)...
6.-Agreement constituting; advance by way of loan,
lender to share in profit. Ex parte Delhasse (Eng.
7.-Construction of contract; part owners not partners.
Chapman v. Eames (Sup., Me.)..
8.-Partner's private debt; firm funds applied to, not
recoverable back. Bloodgett v. Sleeper (Sup., Me.) 413
9.-Retiring partner liable for debts of firm, not-
withstanding agreement between partners and that
firm has assets; release of security by creditor does
not relieve from liability. Ransom v. Tayler (Sup.
10.-Carrier not relieved from liability because shipper
violates law against fictitious firms. Wood v. Erie
Ry. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.).....
See Bankruptcy, 103-110.
PATENT RIGHT NOTES.-A State law requiring
notes given for patent rights to state that fact, un-
constitutional. Woolen v. Banker (U. S. C., S. D.,
Ohio) (in full) 72; also, State v. Lockwood (Sup.,
Wis.) 332; and contra, Haskell v. Jones (Sup., Pa.)... 267
2.-Non-negotiable note not included in act in relation
to. State v. Brower (Sup. Com., O.)...................
PLEADING.- Nul tiel corporation cannot be pleaded
collaterally. County of Macon v. Shores (U. S.
2.-Complaint stating only conclusion of law, not suffi-
cient. Sheridan v. Jackson (Ct. App., N. Y.)..
3.-Complaint joining legal and equitable claim, ground
of dismissal. Thornton v. St. P. & Ch. Ry. Co.
(Ct. App., N. Y.)......
See Negotiable Instrument.
PROPERTY.-Seat in N.Y. Cotton Exchange is. Rit-
terbond v. Bagget (N Y. Superior Ct.)....
PERSONAL PROPERTY.-Rights of action ex
delictu are not. Gibson v. Gibson (Sup., Wis.)....
PRACTICE.-In Federal courts, depositions not gov-
erned by requirement assimilating practice to that of
State courts. Sage v. Tauszky (U. S. C., S. D.,
2.-Printing opinion below in case in Court of Appeals,
necessary. Bastable v. City of Syracuse (Ct. App.,
3.-Under new Code allowed; supplemental answer
under $574 discretional and not appealable. Spears
v. Mayor of New York (Ct. App., N. Y.).
4.-Reversal of judgment for lack of evidence. U.S.
v. Clark (U. S. Sup).....
5.-Action pending against corporation terminated by
dissolution. Sturgis v. Vanderbilt (Ct. App., N.
6.-Defendant failing to fille cross-bill has no claim for
affirmative relief. McPherson v. Cox (U. S. Sup.). 373
7.-General exceptions too vague. Krekeler v. Thaule
(Ct. App., N. Y.).............
8.-Service of summons, plaintiff may prove; offer of
judgment; irregularity. White v. Bogart (Ct. App.,
9.-Authority to sue must be proved. Scofield v. Dos-
cher (Ct. App., N. Y.)
10.-Objection to proof of title not founded on defect
in complaint when not available. Riddell v. N. Y.
C., etc., R. R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.).
See Appeal; Arrest and Bail Bankruptcy, 7, 12, 13;
Costs; Receiver; Reference; Removal of Cause; Trial.
PRE-EMPTION.-Right to, cannot be obtained by
intruder on lands of another. Atherton v. Fowler
(U. S. Sup.)
PROMISSORY NOTE.-Conditional note; credits
on: payment; agency. Howe Machine Co. v. Simler
PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE.
railroad collision, caused by an engineer's failure
to see a landslide, caused the oil on one train to take
fire and float down a stream that ran beside the
track, and set fire to plaintiff's adjoining property.
Held, that cause was too remote to entitle plaintiff
to recover. Hoag v. Lake Shore R. R. Co. (Sup. Ct.,
Pa.) 17; (in full)..
2.-Damage caused by fire set in adjoining field by en-
gine sparks not too remote. Houston, etc., R. R.
Co. v. McDonough (Sup., Tex.).
3.-Burning of boat by straw piled on it and set fire to
by negligence not too remote. Riddell v. N. Y. C.,
etc., R. R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.)..........
4.-Wrong-doer liable for consequences of act from in-
tervention of another. Clark v. Chambers (Eng. Q.
B. D.((N. C.) 458; (in full)...........
RAILROAD.-Railroad company taking possession
of land without right liable in trespass; rule of dam-
ages. Blesch v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (Sup., Wis.)....
2.-Running expenses; injuries done to property in
operating mortgaged railroad part of. Smith v.
Eastern R. R. Co. (Sup., Mass.)
3.-Ticket entitles to ride but in one direction. Keeley
v. B. & M. R. R. Co. (Sup., Me.) (in full).
4.-Company bound to keep approaches to stations
safe; icy platform. Weston v. N. Y. E. R. R. Co.
(Ct. App., N. Y.).............
5.-Fencing line; when fence division one, company and
land-owner under same duty to keep. Dayton & M.
R. R. Co. v. Miami Co. Inf. (Sup. Com., Ohio)
See Constitutional Law, 40, 41.
RECORDING ACTS.--Presumption of delivery from
recording rebutted by failure to take possession.
Knowles v. Barnhardt (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
.-To be protected by purchaser must be one in good
faith and without notice. Wells v. Ross (Ct. App.,
REFERENCE.-Essential prerequisite to order for
sale of lunatic's estate. Matter of Valentine (Ct.
App., N. Y.)......
2.-Fraud in obtaining assessment of damages by referee
invalidates; evidence of. Jordan v. Volkenning
(Ct. App., N. Y.)....
REAL ESTATE.-Life tenant of lands covering coal
mine cannot take coal from mine not opened. West
Morelands Coal Co.'s Appeal (Sup., Pa.).
2.-Covenants of grantee limiting use, when enforced.
Lottimer v. Livermore (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
3.-Notice of title, open possession operates as. Noyes
v. Hall (U. S. Sup.).....
See Adverse Possession; Boundaries; Covenant.
RECEIVER.-Action against, foreign not maintaina-
ble. Burton v. Barbour (Sup., D. C.)..
2.-Of Federal court; State court can enjoin railroad
receiver from obstructing public street and enforce
injunction by punishment; powers of receiver lim-
ited by charter of company. Safford v. People (C.
T.) 179; (Sup., Ill.) (in full)..
3.-Appointed in another State will be recognized as
against citizen of court's own State. Bagley v. At-
lant., etc., R. R. Co (Sup., Pa.)....
REMOVAL OF CAUSE,-Under act of 1875; cross
bill among defendants will not prevent. Tarver v.
Ficklin (Sup., Ga.)..
2.-Act of 1875, § 2. Decision of case must be shown to
depend on construction of law or Constitution of
United States. Little York Co. v. Keyes (U. S.
3.-Manipulation of State law so as to prejudice individ-
ual gives no right to remove to Federal courts. Pe-
tition of Wells (U. S. Circ.) (in full)..
4.-Act of 1867. Corporation entitled to benefit of, and
its officers may sign and verify the necessary papers
(Ct. App., N. Y.)......
REPLEVIN.-Property taken under warrant for tax
against plaintiff not repleviable. T. & L. R. R. Co.
v. Kane (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
REPRESENTATIONS.-As to credit in good faith
SARATOGA SPRINGS.-Construction of charter of.
People v. Wood (Ct. App., N. Y.)
SEDUCTION.--Of daughter, action lies by administra-
tor for. Noice v. Brown (Sup., N. J.)..
SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.- What
facts will support claims for false representation;
cargo to arrive. Schroeder v. Mendl (Eng. Ct. App.) 37
2.-Delivery. Possession of growing crops sold on,
without vendee taking manual possession; manual
delivery of ponderous articles not required; sale
fraudulent if possession retained by vendor. Tich-
ner v. McClelland (Sup., II.)..
3.-Vendor's lien on goods; delivery by transfer on
warehouse books. Grice v. Richardson (Eng. P. C.). 192
4.-Delivery to carrier of goods ordered to be shipped is
delivery but not acceptance; evidence of accept-
ance. W. S. Plate Co. v. Green (Ct. App., N. Y.).. 254
5.-Vendor retaining title until payment; execution of
lease does not alter contract. Greer v. Church (Ct.
App., Ky.) (N. C.)...
6.-Contract for lease and sale of sewing machine; usage
sanctioning such contracts not unreasonable. Ex
parte Singer S. M. Co. (Ir. Ct. B'kruptcy,) (N. C.).......... 399
7.-Sale of article to arrive, valid. Lawrence v. Gallagher
(Ct. App., N. Y.)
8.-Liquor and labels, labels delivered, part delivery.
Garfield v. Paris (U. S. Sup.) (in full.)..
SERVICE. Upon officers of corporation, binds corpora-
tion; service on Virginia municipal corporation. City
of Alexandria v. Fairfax (U. S. Sup.)
2. Of summons on non-resident of Oregon by publication;
defects in affidavit do not invalidate collaterally.
Pennoyer v. Neff (U. S. Sup.).
3. Of process; Federal Supreme Court by rule may fix
manner of. Levinson v. Oc. St. Nav. Co. (U. S. Circ.)
SALE OF REAL ESTATE. Compensation from
vendor not allowed for discoverable defect. Manson v.
Thacher (Eng. Ct. App) (N. C.)....
2.-Caveat emptor as to one in possession. Bidwell v.
Evans (Sup., Pa.)
SLANDER.--Charge of stealing from town is actiona-
ble. Hayes v. Ball (Ct. App., Ñ. Y.)...
2.--Mitigating circumstances must be pleaded. Willover
v. Hill (Ct. App., N. Y.)..
SCHOOLS.-When pupil may and may not elect as to his
studies. People v. Van Allen (Sup., Ill.)
SET-OFF-Saving bank deposit allowable against mort-
gage held by insolvent bank. Matter of N. A. S. Bk.
v. Tartar (N. Y. Sup.) (N. C.).
2.-Penalty for usury by national bank cannot be in other
actions. Hade v. McVay (Sup., Ohio) (in full.)..
3.-Value of bond left with bank as collateral and stolen,
not against note. W. Sav. Bk. v. Jackson (Sup., Me.) 452
SHIPPING.--Canal boat, a vessel within New York
State, lien law; lien on boat not imposed by personal
judgment, etc.; steamboat navigating western lakes
King v. Greenway (Ct. App., N. Y.).....
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.-Where willfu error
in deed of land contracted to be conveyed exists, per-
formance according to contract will be decreed. Wilson
v. Van Pelt (Ct. App., N. Y.)..
2.-Underlease; waiver of objection to title covenants not
to underlet, etc.; when grantee has; re-entry; merger;
reversion. Hyde v. Warden (Eng. Ct. App.)..
STATUTE OF FRAUDS.-Agreement signed by
the party to be charged. The recognition of the agree
ment as binding in other writings is a sufficient sign-
ing, and parol proof is admissible to establish the con-
nection of the writing. Beckwith v. Talbot (Sup. Ct.,
2.-Subsequent part delivery of personal property takes
Gaslin v. Penney (Sup., Minn.).
sale out of.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS - Continued.
3.-Memorandum required must furnish evidence of a
complete and practical agreement; part perform-
ance must be shown clearly. Williams v. Morris (U.
4.-When parol gift of real estate will be enforced;
evidence required to take out of statute. Worth v.
Worth (Sup., Ill.)
5.-Promise to indemnify sheriff making levy not
within. Heidenheimer v. Johnston (Ct. App., Tex.) 114
6.-Party performing verbal contract void by, entitled
to recover on quantum meruit. Towsley v. Moore
(Sup. Com., Ohio)
7.-Burden of proof against plaintiff upholding con-
tract; void contract of sale not made valid by act
not vesting title in vendee. Bacon v. Eccles (Sup.,
10. Sale of land, sale of standing timber is, and void if
by parol. Daniels v. Bailey (Sup., Wis.).
11.--Sale of personal property. conditional acceptance
by agent. Kebble v. Gough (Eng. Ct. App )..
12.-Agreement to pay attorney out of proceeds of land
to be sold not void by. McPherson v. Cox (U. S.
13.-Sale of personal property, memorandum need be
signed by party to be charged only. Mason v
Decker (Ct. App., N. Y.)...
14.-Sale of goods part delivery; liquor with labels
therefor were sold to defendant in New York, he
taking the labels; the liquor was sent to Michigan.
Held to be for jury to say whether the labels consti-
tuted a part of the goods sold. Garfield v. Paris (U.
S. Sup.) 373; (in full)..
15.-Contract not to be performed within a year must
affirmatively appear so to avoid; variance by subse-
quent verbal agreement when binding. Walker v.
Johnson (U.S. Sup.)...
16.-Promise to pay debt of another, representation of
commercial agency as to credit is not. Sprague v.
Dun (Phila. C. P.) (N. C.).
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.- Payment by
principal on note prevents statute running as to
surety. Schendel v. Gales (Ct. App., Md.) (N. C.).
2.-Promise to husband of deceased owner of note stops
statute running. Keely v. Wright (Sup., Pa.)...
3.-Surety rights of, when surety may not plead, though
principal can; right of surety after payment.
Reeves v. Kalliam (Sup., Fla.)..
4.-In fraud, runs from discovery of. Penob. R. R. Co.
V. Mayo (Sup., Me.)..
5.-Does not run on suit commenced and abated by
death. Evans v. Cleveland (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
6.-Under 8 104, old Code, action may be commenced
within one year after judgment of reversal by Ct.
of Appeals. Wooster v. Forty-Second St. R. R. Co.
(Ct. App., N. Y.).......
7.-Resulting trust, action to enforce does not lie in
Pennsylvania after 21 years. King v. Pardee (U. S
8.-In Court of Claims, where action accrues. U. S. v.
Clark (U. S. Sup.).
9.--Does not run against claim against bankrupt estate.
Van Sachs v. Kretz (Ct. App., N. Y.)..
10.-Runs as to dower. Proctor v. Bigelow (Sup., Mich.)
(N. C) 278; (in full.)
11.-Promise by partner of dissolved firm does not bind
firm. Tate v. Clemens (Sup. Ct., Fla.)..
12.-Action to recover land not applicable to lien of judgment
creditor; Statute of Illinois. Pratt v. Pratt (Ü. S.
See Constitutional Law, 44.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.-Laws 1875,
ch. 517, People v. Wood (Ct. App., NY).
2.-In this State the title is part of a legislative act. Peo-
ple v. Wood (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
3.-Laws District Columbia; parties defendant; election in
action on joint and several note. Burdette v. Bartlett
(U. S. Sup.)...
4.-Laws of 1855, chap. 6, regulating excavations in New
York and Brooklyn; license to enter and protect adjoin-
ing building must be asked for. Dorrity v. Rapp (Ct.
App., N. Y.)...
5.- Repeal of penal act without saving clause affects pend-
ing actions. Rood v. C. M. & St. P. R. R. Co. (Sup.,
6. Statute of Tennessee adding territory to city does not
render added territory taxable for debts previously
contracted. United States v. Memphis (U. S. Sup.).. 233
7.-Repeal of revenue laws by implication are favored.
Kohlsaat v. Murphy (U. S. Sup.)
8.-Act of Congress, July 17, 1872, forbidding private cir-
culating notes less than $1, non-payable in goods, does
not violate. United States v. Van Auken (U. S. Sup.)