Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

PAGE

392

JUSTICES' COURTS.-- Code, & 1303, inapplicable

to appeals from. Roberts v. Davids (N. Y. Sup.).... 60
JUROR.-Previous conversation hy, as to facts of case

not ground for challenge for cause. Un. Gold Min.

Co. V. Rocky Mt. Nat. Bank (U.S. Sup.).............. 108
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.)...

17
2.-Of Federal court; except under bankrupt law, Fed.

eral cannot enjoin action in State court. City of
Alexandria v. Fairfax (U. S. Sup.)...

132
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.)...

237
6.- May be acquired by service of process on attorney.

Levinson v. Oc. St. Nay, Co. (U. S. Circ.) (in full.).. 285
7.-General appearance of non-resident defendant gives.
Olcott v. McLean (Ct. App., N. Y.)........

314
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 filing

stipulation under State law authorizing agent to re-
ceive process, by service on such agent.

Fonda v.
B. Am. Assur. Co. (U. S. Circ.).

334
10.--Of State courts over offenses by officers of national
banks. Several cases (N. C.)...

339
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 (V. S. Sup.)
(in full).

427
14. -State courts have, of action by assignee in bank-

ruptcy. Kidder v. llorribin (Ct. App., N. Y.).... 433
15. - Divorce by Utah court between non-resident par-

ties invalid. State v. Armington (Sup., Minn.) (in
full)..

451
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.)...

435
LATERAL SUPPORT.-Twenty years open enjoy-

ment of, raises presumption of grant of. Angus v.
Dalton (Eng. Q. B. D.) (N. C.)....

258
LEASE.--Lessor accepting assignee of lease as tenant,

not .
Hunt v. Gardner (Sup., N. J.) (N. C.)..

118
2.- Tenant recovering for value of use and occupation

of leased premises after eviction liable for rent.
Knox v. Hester (Ct. App., N. Y.).......

151
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.). ...,

171
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.)...

191
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.).....

433
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).

505
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.)......

1:26
3.-Report of ex parte proceedings before magistrate
not. Usell v. Hales (Eng. C. P. Div.) (note).

156
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,"

LIBEL - Continued.

PAGE.
7.-Calling pardoned felon, “ convicted felon" is. Ley-
man v. Latimer (Eng. Ct. App.)....

251
8. -Stating that “Cardiff giant was a humbug is not.
Gott v. Pulsifer (Sup., Mass.) (N. C.).....

259
9.-Privileged communication ; bona fide answer to in-

quiries is. Robshaw v. Smith (Eng. C. P. D.).. ... 472
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.).....

474
LIEN.- Warehouseman issuing negotiable warehouse

receipts has only, for charges on specific grain as to
innocent holder for value. Whitev. Hoyt (Ct. App.,

N. Y.)......
2.--Not allowed against trust estate for work done on
credit of trustee. New v. Nicoll (Ct. App., N. Y.).. 293

See Brokerage.
LIFE INSURANCE.-Forfeiture; waiver: agent

not authorized to, cannot waive forfeiture from non-
payment. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Norton
(U. S. Sup.)......

213
2.- Estoppelį 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.

S. Sup.).
3.- Forfeiture must be at once asserted by company or

is waived. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. French (Sup.,
Ohio.) (N. C.)......

239
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.)... 388
5.-Suicide; condition against; not broken if insured is

insane. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Groom (Sup.,
Pa.) (N. C.)..

418
6.-Non-forfeiting policy; rights of insured under ;

construction of policy, cancellation. Chase v.

Phenix 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.,
N. Y.)

454
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 Ios. Co. Ct. App., N. Y.)....

474
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)...

52
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.)

35
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.)..... 30
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. $. Sup.) (in full)..

49
14.-Insurance company cannot maintain action against

one wrongfully killing insured person, Mobile

Life Insurance Co. v. Brame (U. S. Sup.) (in full)... 84
15 --Payment of premiums to agent after revocation of

"smells bad," etc. Cottrill v. Cramer (Sup., Wis.). 251
6.-Privilege ; report of ex parte judicial proceedings,

where complaint is dismissed, privileged U sell v.

authority by one without notice, valid. South. Life
Ins Co. v. McCain (U. S. Sup.)..

153
LOTTERIES.-Constitutional provision forbidding,

does not affect former grants. State v. Miller,
(Sup. Mo.) (in full)...

245
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
jury. State v. Starr (Sup., Me.)...

390
2.-Lager beer presumed to be. State v. Goyette (Sup.,
R. I.)...

392
MANDAMUS.-Rules governing allowance of, return

to appeal from canal board may be compelled by.
People v. Canal Appraisers (Ct. App., N. Y.)..

359
MARRIAGE.-Evidence of, general conduct and

reputation enough. Procter v. Bigelow (Sup., Mich.)
(N. C.) 278; (in full)...

287
2.-Conflict of law, marriage null by law of domicile of

parties when invalid is made elsewhere. Sottomayer
v. De Barros (Eng. Ct. App.)......

290
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-

PAGE.
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:).....

251, 350
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)

28
2.- A tug towing a barge is liable for want of skill. East.
Transp. Line v. Hope (U. S. Sup.)...

35
3.-Limit of liability of ship-owner and stipulators
stated. Sparrow v. Avery (U. S. Sup.)...

55
4.-Owners of cargo saved from lost ship must contri-

bute toward life salvage. The Specie ex Sarpedon
(P. B. & Adm. D., Eng.)....

58
5.-Collision; vessels in motion must keep out of

way of vessels at anchor. Steamtug Ehrman v.
Curtis (U.S. Sup.).......

91
6.-Collision; innocent parties entitled to full compen-

sation, except there is inevitable accident. Steam-
tug Ehrman v. Curtis (U. S. Sup.)..

91
7.-Partnership firm cannot libel vessel owned by its
members. "The Benton (U. S. Dist.) (N. C.)..

98
8.-Statutory construction of acts relative to agree-

ments of seamen. U. 3. R. S., 8 4511. United States
V. Brig Lathrop (U.S. Sup.)..

132
9. -Collision ; facts constituting negligence in manage-

ment of boat. Carpenter v. East. Tr. Co. (Ct. App.,
N. Y)....

173
10.-Light on vessel, temporary extinguishment of, no

violation of statute requiring In re Eclipse (U. S.
Dist.)

192
11.-Collision ; defense, freedom from fault good ; rule

as to compensation. Steamboat v. Redeout (U. S.
Sup.)....

233
12.-Shipowners, law limiting liability of, applicable to

foreign vessels. Levinson v. Oc. St. Nay. Co. (U.S.
Circ.) (in full)...

285
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.)..... 351
14.-Collision, rules for avoiding applied ; common law

rule as to negligence applied. Lord' v. Hazeltone
(Sup., Me.)...

413
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.
S. Sup.)......

473
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.).....

38
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., III.).

91
3.-Contract to foat logs does not create relation of.

Town of Pierpont v. Loveless (Ct. App., N. Y.).. 191
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.)......

276, 312
5.-Master must furnish safe machinery; defective rail-

! R:
tively acquainted with defects. Mehan v. S. & B.
R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.)........

374
6.-Negligence of fellow servant gives no cause of action

to servant against master; ne not be employed in
same particular work; "mining boss" and "driver
boss
are fellows.

L. V. Coal Co. v. Jones (Sup.,
Pa.)..

513
MINING.-Mine owner not liable to adjoining owner

for natural overflow of water. Fletcher v. Smith
(Eng. H. L.)....

126
MISTAKE.-Must be of fact not of law to authorize

recovery of money paid. Lambert v. Co. of Dixon
(U. S. Sup.)...

253
MORTGAGE.-Intended as continuing security for

future indebtedness valid. Brown v. Kiefer (Ct.
App., N. Y).......

74
2.--Priority of security not affected by after

promise

to
pay gold. Wallace v. Loomis (U. S. Sup.)..

131
3.-Assumption of, taking subject to, without further

words, not an assumption. Fish v. Tolman (Sup.,
Mass )....

276
4.- 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 y. Robinson (U. S. Sup.)....

352
5.-Construction of an agreement in not to call in

principal on punctual payment of interest; waiver.
Keene v. Biscoe (Eng. C. D.)...

353
6.-Absolute deed may be shown to be by parol, Peugh
v. Davis (U. S. Sup.).

373
1. Of property not actually or potentially in possession

MORTGAGE - Continued.

PAGE.
8.-Discharged from record by mistake may be rein-

stated and lien preserved. French v. Stone (Sup.,
Mich.) (N. C.).....

419
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 y Shores (U. S. Sup.).....

35
2.-Limit of taxation in act authorizing issue of, does

not bind holder of bonds. United States v. Clark
Co. (U. S. Sup.).....

90
3.-Bonds in aid of a private toll bridge are for public

purpose. Commissioners of Dodge v. Chandler (U.
S. Sup.)..

90
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.)..

92
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.)..

291
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.).....

334
See Constitutional Law, 31.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.-Liability for
flooding. Inman v. Tripp..

12
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.)..

58
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.)..... 79
4.-Liable for injury from defective sidewalk put down by

land-owner, Čity of Marquette v. Cleary (Sup.,
Mich.).

114
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.,
N. Y.)....

133
6.--Negligence; liable for act of servant in doing work for
Brivate property owner. Hall v. Mayor (Eng. Q. B.

193
7.-Not liable for personal injury to pupil from defective

public school building. Till v. City of Boston (Sup.,
Mass.) (N. C.)..

218
8.-Powers conferred in city common council cannot be

delegated to agent. Birdsall v. Clark (Ct. App., N.
Y.)...

292
9.-Negligence of; defective highway; no liability for in-

jury to one horse racing. McCarthy v. City of Port-
land (Sup., Me.).....

391
10.-Surface water; no action lies against city for in-

jury from escape of surface water from streets result-
ing from change of grade. Wakefield v. Newell (Sup.,
R. I.) (in full).

362
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.)..

370
12.-Power of; if authorized by charter, may close liquor

saloons at 10 P. M Prest. of Platteville v. Bell (Sup.,
Wis.

371
13.--Not liable for failure to furnish water to extinguish

fires. Taintor y, City of Worcester (Sup., Mass.) (N.
C.).......

418
14.-Cohoes construction of charter of, as to local elections.
People v. North (Ct. App., N. Y.)

433
15.-Negligence by; must keep public places safe for un-

manageable animals. Kennedy v. Mayor of N. Y.
(Ct. App., N. Y.)

451
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

full)...
3.-Usury by; jurisdiction; set-off. Hade v. McVay
(Sup., Ohio) (in full).

410
4.-Trial of matters affecting, when it should be in Fed-
eral courts. In re Duryea (U. S. Dist.)...

472
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.).

473
6.-Mortgage to, note of married woman binding sep-

arate property is not. Third Nat. Bk. v. Blake (Ct.
App., N. Y.)...

511
See Bank Taxation, 4, 5; Usury, 5.
NATURALIZATION.-Chinese not entitled to.

146

438

PAGE.
NAVIGABLE STREAM.-Riparian owner cannot

appropriate. Moore v. Jackson (2 Abb. N. C.) 211;

(N. C.).....
2.-Owner of adjoining land above obstruction, not en-

titled to action for. Blackwell v. 0. C. R. R. Co.
(Sup., Mass.) (N. C.)....

219
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.).....

499
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. 8.)... 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.)...

36
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 )

91
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.,
III.)

92
8.-When death is by a wrongful act of defendant, con-

tributory negligence no defense. Matthews v. War-
ner (Sup. Ct. App., Va.).....

114
9. - Passenger on railroad; not contributory, to ride in

a caboose car. Creed v. Penna. R. R. Co. (Sup., Pa.)
(in full)

361
10.-Slight, will not prevent recovery. Griffin v. T. of
Willow (Sup., Wis.).

370
11.--Of driver of private carriage imputable to owner.
Priedeaux v. C. of Mineral Pt. (Sup., Wis.).

370
12.-Crossing in front of moving train is. Grows v. Me.
Cent. R. R. Co. (Sup., Me.).

390
13.-Offering dog at large candy is not. Lynch v. Mc-
Nally (Ct. App., N. Y.)

414
14.--Defense in action against railroad for animal killed.
Curry v. C. &N. W. Ry. Co. (Sup., Wis.).

430
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.)

454
16.--Railroad killing cattle; turning cattle in field defect-

ively fenced is. Dayt. & M. R. R. Co. v. Miama
Co. Inf. (Sup. Com., Ohio)

472
17.--DAMAGES. No damages can be recovered for death

where killing is in self-defense. March v. Walker
(Sup., Tex.)....

113
18.-EVIDENCE. Firing neighboring building by sparks

from stove; evidence of. Briggs v. New York Cent.,
etc., R. R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.).

174
19.-FACTS When rule as to dependent upon facts of

case. Jackson v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (H. L.)
(C. T.)....

21
20.-INDIRECT CONSEQUENCES. Wrong-doer liable for

consequence of act caused by third person. Clark

V. Chainbers (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. C.).

279
22.-RAILROAD. Absence of flagman usually stationed

at street crossing, is negligence. Dolan v. Del. &
Hud. Canal Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.)..

36
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., II.).

92
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.).....

838
27.-Station platform being icy is; going on platform

not contributory. Weston v. N. Y. E. R. R. Co. (Ct.
App, N. Y.).

415
28.-Porter shutting carriage door upon hand of pas-

senger not. Maddox v. L. C. & D. Ry. Co. (Eng. c.
P. D.) (N. C.)...

458
29.-RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR. Contractors with city

liable for negligent acts rendering city responsible ;
evidence. City of Rochester v. Montgomery (Ct.
App., N. Y.)....

214
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.). 435
31.-SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANIES. Evidence of negligence.

Safe Deposit Co. v. Pollock (Sup., Pa.) (in full). 288
32.-SURFACE WATER from streets. Wakefeld v. New

(Sup. RL

NEGLIGENCE- Continued.

PAGE.
vation cannot recover. Gramlich v. Wurst (Sup.,
Pa ) (N. C.)....

199
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)... 469
See Act of God; Animals, Carrier of Passengers; Master

and Servant; Municipal Corporations; Prorimate and
Remote Cause.
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT..-Agreements

made by indorser with maker ; not admissible to
impeach presumptive contract against bona fide

holder. Brown v. Spofford (U. S. Sup.) (in full). .... 31
2.-Bill of exchange; what drawer of, may recover from

acceptor dishonoring. Re Gen. So. Am. Co., etc.
(Eng. ch. Div.)

113
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.).

133
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.
Com., Ohio.)..

134
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.)

264
6.-Failure of independent consideration not defense to.
Brice v. Carter (Ct. App., N. Y.)

293
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.).....

415
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 Meyer (Ct. App., N, Y. ). 475
11.--Note with place of payment left blank to be filled in.
Woodward v. Green (Sup. App., Va.)...

512
12. -- Township warrants to bearer are not. Tp. of E.
Union v. Ryan (Sup., Pa.)

513
13.- Indorsement; when subsequent one discharges prior.
Howe Mach, Co. v. Hadden (U. S. Circ.)...

513
See Bank Check ; Bankruptcy, 23, 24, 128; Bil of Er-

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.).

415
2.-Ordinance of Board of Health forbidding sale of adul-

terated milk, held valid. Kolinsky v. People (Ct. App.,
N. Y )......

433
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.)

17
2.-Owner renting house for bawdy house, liable to adjoin-

ing owners; rule of damages. Givens v. Van Studde-
ford (Ct. App., St. Louis). ...

93
3.-Claim that it is necessary to enable performance of

.. 109

382

duties imposed by law, no justification. Attorney-Gen-
eral v. Gas Co. (Eng. Ch. Div.)......

172
OBSCENE LIBEL.-Words of libel must be set out in

indictment. Regina v. Bradlaugh (Eng. Ct. App.)... 312
OFFICIAL TERM.-If no time fixed, begins to run

from date of appointment. Atty.-General v. Love (Ct.
Er., N. J.) (N. C.)......

419
OFFICER. Notice must be taken of authority of.
Hawkins v. United States (U.S. Sup.)...

34
2.-Deputy clerk of Federal Court not employee of gov.
ernment. United States v. Meigs (U. S. Sup.).

132
3.--Paid in fees cannot charge public for wages paid assist-
ants. Hartwell v. Milwaukee (Sup., Wis.).

251
PARDON.-Conditions may be annexed to and enforced.
Arthur v. Craig (Sup., Iowa.) (N. C.).........

439
PARENT AND CHILD.-Parent not liable for main-

tenance of infant by volunteer. Tincray v Tincray
(Sup., Tenn.).......

93
PARTIES.-In foreclosure claimant adverse to mort-

gagor, is not. City of Alexandria v. Fairfax (U. S.
Sup.).

132
2.- Defect of, when defense of defect of parties plain-

tiff will not lie; trust ; specific performance." Bis-
sell v. Heyward (U. S. Sup )..

16
3.- Foreclosure action, construction of 2 R. S. 191, 88

152-154. Scofield v. Dosher (Ct. App., N. Y.).. 415
4.- Town, action against ex-supervisor for failure to

ponannt for torn menanamnet ha in naman tan

PAGE.
PARTNERSHIP.-Partners are liable for each

other's torts in partnership business. But partner sell-
ing his interest in Arm not liable for misrepresenta-

tion by copartner. Schwabacker v. Riddle (Sup., III.) 92
2.-Debt owing to firm cannot be applied to pay indi-

vidual partner's indebtedness. Cotzhausen v. Judd
(Sup., Wis.)

251
3.-Dissolution; each_partner may use trade name.
Condy v. Mitchell (Eng. Ct. App.)..

251
4.-Agreement for, not completed does not constitute.
Meyer v. Schacher (Eng. Ch. D.)..

271
5.-Attachment and execution agair:st one partner in firm

debt, does not hold firm property. Staats v. Bris-
tow (Ct. App., N. Y.)....

334
6.-Agreement constituting; advance by way of loan,

lender to share in profit. Ex parte Delhasse (Eng.
Ct. App.).

372
7.--Construction of contract; part owners not partners.
Chapman v. Eames (Sup., Me.)...

413
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
firın has assets; release of security by creditor does
not relieve from liability. Ransom v. Tayler (Sup.
Com., Ohio).

471
10.-Carrier not relieved from liability because shipper

violates law against fictitious firms. Wood v. Erie
Ry, Co. (Ct. App., N.Y.)......

474
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., 0.)........

134
PAYMENT.-of less than claimed on unliquidated

debt if accepted discharges debt; claim against gov-

erament. Baird v. United States (U. S. Sup.).... 233
2.-Promissory note, acceptance of new note of Arm

then dissolved by death for valid old note of firm
does not cancel old note. First Nat. Bk. V. Morgan
(Ct. App., N Y.)....

353
3.-On note not indorsed thereon will be allowed, not-

withstanding stipulation to the contrary. Kasson
v. Noltner (Sup., Wis.)....

430
PERSONAL PROPERTY.-Rights of action ex

delictu are not. Gibson v. Gibson (Sup., Wis.) ..... 38
PLEADING.- Nul tiel corporation cannot be pleaded

collaterally. County of Macon y. Shores (U. S.
Sup.)...

35
2.-Complaint stating only conclusion of law, not suff-

cient. Sheridan v. Jackson (Ct. App., N. Y.). 191
3.--Complaint joining legal and equitable claim, ground

of dismissal. Thornton v. St. P. & Ch. Ry. Co.
(Ct. App., N. Y.)......

374
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.,
Ohio).

93
2.-Printing opinion below in case in Court of Appeals,

necessary Bastable v. City of Syracuse (Ct. App.,
N. Y.)....

132
3.-Under new Code allowed ; supplemental answer

under $574 discretional and not appealable. Spears
V. Mayor of New York (Ct. App., N. Y.).

154
4.-Reversal of judgment for lack of evidence. U.S.
v. Clark (U. S. Sup).....

253
5.-Action pending against corporation terminated by

dissolution. Sturgis v. Vanderbilt (Ct. App., N.
Y.)......

352
6.-Defendant failing to file 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.).....

374
8.-Service of summons, plaintiff may prove ; offer of

judgment ; irregularity. White v. Bogart (Ct. App.,
N. Y.).....

415
9.--Authority to sue must be proved. Scofield v. Dos-
cher (Ct. App., N. Y.)

415
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.).....

454
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.)

292
PROMISSORY NOTE:--Conditional note; credits

on: payment; agency. Howe Machine Co. v. Simler
(Sup., Ind.)....

354
See Negotiable Instrument.
PROPERTY.-Seat in NY. Cotton Exchange is. Rit-
terbond v. Bagget (N Y. Superior Ct.)......

20

PAGE.
PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. A

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 plaintifr
to recover. Hoag v. Lake Shore R. R. Co. (Sup. Ct.,
Pa.) 17; (in full).

186
2.-Damage caused by fire set in adjoining field by en-

gine sparks not too remote. Houston, etc., Á. R.
Co. v. McDonough (Sup., Tex.)..

315
3.-Burning of boat by straw piled on it and set fre to

by negligence not too remote. Riddell v. N. Y. C.,
etc., R. R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.)...

455
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).

505
PUBLIC LANDS.--Patent of, passes title free from

control of government; patent improperly granted
can be canceled only by court; fraud or mistake
ground for relief; pre-emption pre-emptor must
prove settlement ; effect of decision of secretary of

interior. Moore v. Robbins (U. 8. Sup.). ..... 432
PUBLIC POLICY.-- Contracts void by, will not be

enforced; agreement as to pardon of accomplice tes-

tifying. Wight v. Rindskopf (Sup., Wis.)...... 211
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.). .. 38
2. – Kunning expenses; injuries adomerito property in

.

part of
Eastern R. R. Co. (Sup., Mass.)
3.-Ticket entitles to ride but in one direction. Keeley
v. B. & MR. R. Co. (Sup., Me.) (in full).

366
4.--Company bound to keep approaches to stations

safe; icy platform. Weston v. N. Y. E. R. R. Co.
(Ct. App., N. Y.)....

415
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) 472

See Constitutional Law, 40, 41.
REAL ESTATE.-Life tenant of lands covering coal

mine cannot take coal from mine not opened. West
Morelands Coal Co.'s Appeal (Sup., Pa.).

58
2.-Covenants of grantee limiting use, when enforced.
Lottimer v. Livermore (Ct. App., N. Y.)...

374
3.-Notice of title, open possession operates as. Noyes
v, Hall (U. S. Sup.).....

392
See Adverse Possession ; Boundaries; Covenant.
RECEIVER.-Action against, foreign not maintaina-
ble. Burton v. Barbour (Sup., D. C.)..

172
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 y. People (C.
T.) 179; (Sup., III.) (in full)...

209
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.)....

354
RECORDING ACTS.--Presumption of delivery from
recording, rebutted by failure to take possession.
v. (.)

154
2.- To be protected by purchaser must be one in good

faith and without notice. Wells v. Ross (Ct. App.,
N. Y.)......

273
REFERENCE.- Essential prerequisite to order for

sale of lunatic's estate. Matter of Valentine (Ct.
App., N. Y)....

133
2.-Fraud in obtaining assessment of damages by referee

invalidates; evidence of. Jordan v. Volkenning
(Ct. App., N. Y.)......

174
RELIGIOUS CORPORATION.-May not convey

lands held adversely. Christie v. Gage (Ct. App.,
N. Y.).......

35
REMOVAL OF CAUSE.-Under act of 1875; cross

bill among defendants will not prevent. Tarver v.
Ficklin (Sup., Ga.).....

315
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.
Sup.)......

162
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)....

111
4.- Act of 1867. Corporation entitled to benefit of, and

its officers may sign and verify the necessary papers
(Ct. App., N. Y.)........

4775
REPLEVIN.-Property taken under warmnt for tax

against plaintiff not repleviable. T. & L. R. R. Co.
v. Kane (Ct. App., N. Y.)....

254
REPRESENTATIONS.-As to credit in good faith

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

127

ance.

299

PAGE.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.-Dangerous work;

in contract necessary to be performed by blasting,

principal liable. City of Joliet v.Harwood (Sup.,111.) 172
2.- Employment of contractor by day does not make

employer liable for his negligence. Harrison v. Col-
lins (Sup., Pa.) (N. C)....

398
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.-Covenant not to dis-

close trade secret not in. Hoag v. Darley (Eng. Ch.
D.).....

376
REVENUE LAWS.--Not penal so as to require

strict construction. Lilianthal v. United States
(U. S. Sup.).....

153
RIPARIAN RIGHTS.-Navigation of river above

tide is not a public right and owner of adjoining
land may impede it. Orr Ewing v. Colquhoun

(Eng. H. L.)..
SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANIES.-Liability of, for

loss; evidence of negligence. Safe D. Co. v. Pollock
(Sup., Pa.) (in full)..

288
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-

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,) (V. C.).... 399
7.-Sale of article to arrive, valid. Lawrence v. Gallagher
(Ct. App., N. Y.)

415
8.--Liquor and labels, labels delivered, part delivery.
Garfield v. Paris (U.S. Sup.) (in full.).

467
SALE OF REAL ESTATE.-Compensation from

vendor not allowed for discoverable defect. Manson v.
Thacher (Eng. Ct. App ) (N. C.)...

299
2.-Caveat emptor as to one in possession. Bidwell v.
Evans (Sup., Pa.)

518
SARATOGA SPRINGS.--Construction of charter of,
People v. Wood (Ct. App., N. Y.)

57
SCHOOLS.-When pupil may and may not elect as to his
studies. People v. Van Allen (Sup., II.)

315
SEDUCTION.--Of daughter, action lies by administra-
tor for. Noice v. Brown (Sup., N. J.).....

171
SERVICE.-Upon officers of corporation, binds corpora-

tion; service on Virginia municipal corporation. City
of Alexandria v. Fairfax (U. S. Sup.)

133
2.-Of summons on non-resident of Oregon by publication;

defects in affidavit do not invalidate collaterally.
Pennoyer v. Neff (U. S. Sup.).

161
3.-Of process; Federal Supreme Court by rule may fix

manner of. Levinson v. Oc. St. Nav. Co. (U. S. Circ.)
(in full.).

285
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.)....

318
2.-Penalty for usury by national bank cannot be in other

actions. Hade v. McVay (Sup., Ohio) (in full.). 410
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.).......

154
SLANDER.--Charge of stealing from town is actiona-
ble. Hayes v. Ball (Ct. App., Ñ. Y.)...

234
2.--Mitigating circumstances must be pleaded. Willover
v. Hill (Ct. App., N. Y.)...

314
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.).....

109
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.).. 291
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.,
U. 6.)

16
2.-Subsequent part delivery of personal property takes
sale out of. Gaslin v. Penney (Sup., Minn.).

37

STATUTE OF FRAUDS-Continued.

PAGE.
3.-Memorandum required must furnish evidence of a

complete and practical agreement; part perform-
ance must be shown clearly. Williams v. Morris (U.
S. Sup.)

56
4.--When parol gift of real estate will be enforced ;

evidence required to take out of statute. Worth v.
Worth (Sup., m.)

92
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)...

134
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.,
Wis.)..

251
8.-Parol promise to pay debt of another out of funds

to be received is not. Justice v. Tallman (Sup.,
Pa.).....

280
9.--Assumption in pursuance of, an act of assembly of

astatutory liability of another not within; consider-
ation. Pittsburg, F W.&C. Ry. Co v. Stokes (Sup.,
Pa ).....

315
10. --Sale of land, sale of standing timber is, and void if
by parol. Daniels v. Bailey (Sup., Wis).

371
11. --Sale of personal property, conditional acceptance

by agent. Kebble v. Gough (Eng. Ct. App). 372
12.--Agreement to pay attorney out of proceeds of land

to be sold not void by. McPherson v. Cox (U. S.
Sup.).

373
13.- Sale of personal property, memorandum need be

signed by party to be charged only. Mason v
Decker (ct. App., N. Y.)...

373
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).

467
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.).

49 9
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.- Payment by

principal on note prevents statute running as to

surety. Schendel v. Gales (Ct. App., Md.) (N. C.). 459
2.-Promise to husband of deceased owner of note stops

statute running. Keely v. Wright (Sup., Pa.)... 435
3.-Surety rights of, when surety may not plead, though

principal can; right of surety after payment.
Reeves v. Kalliam (Sup., Fla.).

435
4.-In fraud, runs from discovery of. Penob. R. R, Co.
v. Mayo (Sup., Me.)...

453
5.-Does not run on suit commenced and abated by

death. Evans v. Cleveland (Ct. App., N. Y.).... 512
6.--Under $ 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.).....

109
7.-Resulting trust, action to enforce does not lie in

Pennsylvania after 21 years. King v. Pardee (U. S
Sup.).....

161
8.-In Court of Claims, where action accrues. U.S. V
Clark (U.S. Sup.).

253
9.--Does not run against claim against bankrupt estate.
Van Sachs v. Kretz (Ct. App., N. Y.)..

254
10.-Runs as to dower. Proctor v. Bigelow (Sup., Mich.)
(N. C.) 278; (in full.)

287
11.-Promise by partner of dissolved firm does not bind
firm. Tate v. Clemens (Sup. Ct., Fla.).

315
12.--Action to recover land not applicable to lien of judgment

creditor; Statute of Illinois. Pratt v. Pratt (U. S.
Sup.).....

352
See Constitutional Law, 44.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.- Laws 1875,

ch. 517, People v. Wood (Ct. App., N Y).
2.-In this State the title is part of a legislative act. Peo-
3.-Laws District Columbia; parties defendant; election in

pley Wood act. App: N. YA!
action on joint and several note. Burdette v. Bartlett
(U. S. Sup.)..

91
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.,
Wis.)....

971
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.),

392
8.-Act of Congress, July 17, 1872, forbidding private cir-

culating notes less than $i, non payable in goods, does
not violate. United States v. Van Auken (U.S. Sup.)
(in full.).

431, 40

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »