« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
SURETYSHIP.-A surety cannot require the credi-
tor to see that his principal performs. Harris v. Newell
(Sup., Wis.) (N. C.)...
2.-The liability of a surety cannot be extended by con-
struction, constable's official bond. Taylor v. Par-
ker (Sup., Wis)..
3.-Construction of contract of guaranty.
Gas L. Co. v. Clark (U. S. Sup.).
4.-Official bond sureties in, not liable for personal injury
resulting from neglect of duty of principal. Jenks v.
Fassett (Sup, Mo.)
5.-Surety on undertaking on appeal not exonerated by
discharge of principal in bankruptcy. Knapp v. An-
derson (Ct. App., N. Y.)
6.- Government officer; sureties of, not discharged by
forbearance. United States v. Wright (U. S. Dist.)
7.-Principal liable to surety for costs and expenses incur-
red in securing debt. Thompson v. Taylor (Ct. App.,
SURROGATE. Has not jurisdiction to make legacies
chargeable in real estate. Bivan v. Cooper (Ct. App.,
See Bankruptcy, 143.
TELEGRAPH.-Failure to deliver message sent enti-
tles to at least nominal damages. Logan v. West. Un.
Tel. Co. (Sup., Ill).
TENANCY IN COMMON.-Doweress and heirs
tenants in common. Knowles v. Barnhardt (Ct. App.,
TENDER-Must be kept good to stop interest and costs.
Bissell v. Heyward (U. S. Sup.)..
TIME.-Computation of; no time stated means reason-
able time. Shipler v. Scott (Sup., Pa.)..
TITLE.-To personal property; fraudulent bills of lading
given by general owner in possession, of pledged cargo
of grain transfer, no title; nor does fraudulent deliv-
ery, and the pledgee is not estopped from asserting
8. Sureties when liable for debt of public officer, pre-
viously a defaulter. State v. Tooy (Sup., N. J).
9.-Construction of contract to furnish goods. Morrell v.
Cowan (Eng. Ct. App.).
10. Attempt of creditor to collect collateral securities or
receiving such securities, or attempted payment will
not release surety. Lord v. Bigelow (Sup., Mass.)... 231
11.-Release of surety; creditor discharging after-acquired
security for debt, releases surety. Campbell v.
Rothwell (Eng. C. P. D.)..
12. Alteration in contract; surety not liable under new
contract. Holme v. Brunskill (Eng. C. P. D.)..
13.-Official bond of U. S. revenue collector; sureties not
liable to private individuals for torts of principal.
Clark v. United States (Sup., Ga.)
14.-Death; rule releasing surety by death not applicable
to indorser of commercial paper.
First Nat. Bk. v.
Morgan (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
15.-One signing as surety presumptively does so for all
apparent makers; consideration; release as indorser
sufficient. Sayles v. Sims (Ct. App., N. Y.)..
16.-Representations as to credit in good faith do not
render maker liable. Duff v. Williams (Sup., Pa.) (in
See Bankruptcy, 13, 138-142; Corporation, 20.
TAXATION. Must extend over whole of the district
benefited State v. Fuller (Sup., N. J.)....
2.-Voluntarily paid when recoverable back. City of
Elizabeth v. Hill (Sup., N. J.)...........
3.--Purchase at tax sale by party bound to pay taxes is
but payment; is voluntary, and mistake as to effect
is one of law. Lambert v. Co. of Dixon (U. S. Sup.). 252
4. Of national banks; rate of, how determined in New
York; deduction for real estate. People v. Commrs.
of Taxes (Ct. App., N. Y.) (in full)..
5. Of national banks; unjust discrimination against, not
allowable, and will be restrained by Federal court.
Merch. Nat. Bk. v. Cumming (U. S. Circ.) (C. T.) 297
6.-Assessments for street improvements not taxes; cove-
nant to pay taxes of every name and nature. Beals
v. Prov. Rubber Co. (Sup., R. I.) (N. C.).
7.--Of farm lands included in extension of city for depart-
ments of, valid. Kelly v. C. of Pittsburgh (Sup., Pa.)
8. -Exemption from personal and not assignable. Wilson
v. Gaines (Sup., Pa.).
2. To article to be manufactured and sent, vests when de-
livered to carrier to be sent, and this is not defeated,
because manufacturer retains lien while article in car-
rier's hands. Higgons v. Murray (Ct. App., N. Y.).. 334
3. Sale of land by one in rebellion before passage of con-
fiscation act gives good title. Conrad v. Waples (U.
4.-To stolen securities; purchaser in good faith. D. M.
Ins. Co. v. Hatchfield (Ct. App., N. Y.)..
TRADE-MARKS.- Infringement; "Sapolio
"Saphia; public must be misled and defendant's
individuality preserved. Enoch Morgan Sons Co. v.
Schwachhofer (Sup., N. Y.) (in full.)
2.-Bottles bearing distinctive indelible mark cannot be
used by rival trader. Rose v. Loftus (Eng. Ch. D.).. 472
TRADE SECRET.-Covenant not to disclose, not too
general and enforceable. Hagg v. Darley (Eng. Ch.
TRESPASS.-Trespasser by mistake, cutting timber,
not entitled to compensation for work done. Isle Roy
Min. Co. v. Hertin (Sup., Mich.)
2.-Taking possession of premises held over by tenant at
will after notice not. Sullivan v. Carberry (Sup., Me.) 413
TRIAL.-A ruling working no harm is not error. Mut.
Ben. & Life Ins. Co. v. Higginbotham (Sup. Ct., U.S.) 16
2.-Cross-examination is very much within discretion of
court. Carrington v. Ward (Ct. App., N. Y.)
3.-Instruction to jury on assumed fact is error. Chi. R. I.
& P. R. R. Co. v. Houston (U. S. Sup.).
4.-Practice at, as to excepting to incompetent evidence.
Furst v. Second A. R. R. Co. (Ct. App., N. Y.)... 272
5.-General objection to evidence when sufficient and when
insufficient. McCulloch v. Hoffman (Ct. App., N.
6.-Charged to jury comments not prejudicing, not ground
for reversal, court not bound to give as instruction philo-
sophical remarks. Walker v. Johnson (U. S. Sup.).. 432
See Criminal Law, 38, 39; Juror.
TROVER.-Defense; mistaken removal of fence under
orders of town officers, not. Smith v. Colby (Sup.,
TRUSTS.-Life estate, a will directing trustees to
permit one to have, take and receive'rents, issues and
profits of land during natural life, creates life estate.
Verdin v. Slocum (Ct. App., N. Y.) (in full)..
2.-Assignee of mortgage held in trust expressed therein
takes subject to trust. Reid v. Sprague (Ct. App.,
.--Mutual ill will between cestui que trust and trustee not
alone ground for removing trustee; attorney trus-
tee for client. McPherson v. Cox (U. S. Sup)..... 373
ULTRA VIRES.-Doctrine only applicable to exe-
cutory contracts. Thompson v. Lambert (Sup., Iowa)
2.-Cannot be set up as defense for negligence. O & M.
R. R. Co. v. McCarthy (U. S. Sup.).
3.-Contract of corporation in excess of powers valid
unless against public policy, that loan was made in
excess of powers no defense to action by corpora-
tion in. Germ. F. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dhein (Sup.,
INFLUENCE.- Pretenses of spiritual-
istic communication constitutes. Leighton v. Orr
(Sup., Iowa) (N. C.)................
USURY.-Forfeiture must be confined to usurious
loan though consolidated with non-usurious. Mahn
V. Hussey (Chan., N. J.)...
2.-Unauthorized taking of, by agent does not bind
principal. Gokey v. Knapp (Sup., Iowa) (N. C.).... 119
-What is not; the directors of a company loaned
money in interest to it and the money was deposited
without interest in a bank of which they were also
directors. Held, no usury. Omaha Hotel Co. v.
Wade (U. S. Sup.)
4.-Penalty in default in payment not. Ramsay v. Mor-
rison (Sup., N. J.)...
5.-Taint of, follows renewal notes, and a National bank
must give credit in an action on the lost note for all
interest paid from beginning. Cake v. First Nat.
Bk. of Lebanon (Sup., Pa.) (in full)
6.-Injunction will issue to restrain collection of.
Waite v. Ballou (Sup., Kan.)
7.-By National banks State courts have jurisdiction for
penalties; set-off; penalty may not be against other
note. Hade v. McVay (Sup., Ohio) (in full)
WAIVER.-Acceptance by State of work and payment
with knowledge of all circumstances of contract
illegally made, ratification and waiver of claim un-
der. People v. Lord (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
WAREHOUSE RECEIPT.-Possession of, in-
dorsed in blank, presumptive evidence of ownership
of property described, is negotiable, effect of notice.
Davis v. Russell (Sup., Cal.)......
WARRANTY.-A receipt stating a horse to be
"quiet to ride and drive, and warranted sound," held
not a warranty that the horse was quiet to ride and
drive. Anthony v. Halstead. (Eng. Com. Pl. Div.) 17
2. Breach of possession is essential to maintenance of
action for. Matteson v. Vaugh (Sup., Mich.)
logs on small streams.
less (Ct. App., N. Y.).
WATER-COURSE.-Right exists in public to float
Town of Pierpont v. Love-
WAY.-Existing right of, cannot be enlarged by new
use. Carty v. Shields (Sup., Pa.) (N. C.)....
WILL.-In lead pencil valid. Myers v. Vanderbilt
(Sup., Pa.) (N. C.).
2.-Bequest for advancement of Kingdom of Christ by
designated means valid.
3.-Construction of "living children" held not to in-
clude grandchild; "children and heirs" includes
grandchild; instruction to exclude lineal descend-
ant will not be imputed. Low v. Harmony (Ct.
App., N. Y.)....
4-Construction of; suspension of power of aliena-
tion. Moore v. Hegeman (Ct. App., N. Y.)....
5.-Construction of; perpetuities. Garvey v. McDivitt
(Ct. App., N. Y.).
6. Signed by another by direction of testator valid;
supported against testimony of subscribing witness.
Will of Jenkins (Sup., Wis.).....
7.-Construction of, when legacies not chargeable on
real estate. Bevan v. Cooper (Ct. App., N. Y.)...... 512
WITNESS,- Impeachment; though party cannot
Impeach his own witness, he may contradict him.
Smith v. Ebhert (Sup., Wis.).....
2.-Experts, compensation of; physician testifying as,
entitled to extra witness fees. Buchman v. State
(Sup., Ind.) (in full)..
3.-Party is at common law to prove contents of lost
package, and under § 1079, U. S. R. S. United States
v. Clark (U. S. Sup.)...
4. Deceased party; remarks of deceased, to third per-
son, in presence of other party, he cannot testify
to under old Code, § 399. Kranshaar v. Meyer (Ct.
App., N. Y.).............