3(4) (Vt.) Where water course boundary
is given, it governs over reference to descrip-
tion of previous conveyance.-McDonough v.
Hanger, 452.

3(7) (Vt.) Boundary line described as
boundary of other land governed by location of
boundary of such other land.-Viall v. Hurley,
395.
14 (Conn.) River held essential boundary.

12 (N.J.Sup.) Father acquires no legal pa--Walz v. Bennett, 834.
ternal status by subsequent marriage to mother.
-Fischer v. Meader, 503.

III. PROCEEDINGS UNDER BAS-
TARDY LAWS.

II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT,
AND ESTABLISHMENT.

26 (Vt.) Dispute as to location of bounda-
ry does not authorize interference of equity.—
Viall v. Hurley, 395.

50 (Md.) Plea stating fornication was not
in county held not to jurisdiction.-Leister v.35 (4) (Vt.) Evidence of use and occupa-
State, 78.
tion according to line claimed admissible.-Hol-
ton v. Hassam, 389.

57 (Md.) Woman's testimony as to acts
held admissible.-Leister v. State, 78.

59 (Md.) Evidence of woman having ridden
with others immaterial.-Leister v. State, 78.
60 (Md.) Statement of man held admissible.
-Leister v. State, 78.

70 (Md.) Court cannot peremptorily in-
struct.-Leister v. State, 78.

92 (Md.) Statement of state's attorney in
argument held not injurious.-Leister v. State,
78.

IV. PROPERTY.

97 (Pa.) Act, reserving rights of illegiti-
mate child to share in mother's estate apply to
cases pending at passage of act.-In re Mc-
Farlin's Estate, 444.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

See Exceptions, Bill of.

BILLS AND NOTES.

V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON IN-
DORSEMENT OR TRANSFER.

(D) Bona Fide Purchasers.
337 (Me.) Circumstances which merely
cite suspicion do not show knowledge of infir-
mity by indorsee.-Mechanics' Sav. Bank v.
Berry. 533.

37 (5) (Vt.) Weight of evidence of use and
occupation according to line claimed stated.-
Holton v. Hassam, 389.

40(1) (Vt.) Construction of deeds a ques-
tion of law, but location of boundary line ques-
tion of fact.-Viall v. Hurley, 395.

49 (N.J.Ch.) Practical location of lots in
block held controlling as against descriptions
in deeds or maps.-Doherty v. Egan Waste
Co., 499.

BROKERS.

II. EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORITY.
8(3) (Del.Super.) Evidence held insuffi-
cient to show agency.-Goetz v. Berman, 235.
8(3) (R.1.) Evidence insufficient to show
agency.-Hurley v. Randall, 530.

III. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES TO
PRINCIPAL.

31 (R.I.) Agent cannot buy for himself
without disclosing his interest to his princi-
pal.-Besser v. Allen, 885.

IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN.
ex-40 (Conn.) Writing held to show a con-
tract and not mere offer.-Hayes v. Clark, 781.
Performance by broker held an acceptance of
the offer of employment and creation of mutual
contract.-Id.

345 (Me.) Facts held not to support infer-
ence of bad faith by indorsee.-Mechanics'
Bank v. Berry, 533.

Sav.40 (Del.Super.) No compensation, unless.
there is agency, express or implied.-Goetz v.
Berman, 235.

VI. PRESENTMENT, DEMAND, NO-
TICE, AND PROTEST.

394 (Me.) Demand upon administrator of
maker of note held necessary.-North Nat.
Bank v. Hall, 755.

VII. PAYMENT AND DISCHARGE.

430 (Md.) Acceptance of new note not pay
ment of old, unless so agreed.-Philadelphia &
Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Willinger, 132.

VIII. ACTIONS.

43(3) (N.J.Sup.) Recognition of authority
in agreement of sale never delivered held suf-
ficient to recover commissions.-Kelly v. De-
morest, 273.

44 (Conn.) Real estate broker's agency
held not revoked under facts.-Hayes v. Clark,
781.

members of real estate board held not incon-
49(1) (Conn.) Failure to list property with
sistent with reasonable efforts to find purchas-
er.-Hayes v. Clark, 781.

54 (Me.) Contract for commissions held
to depend on actual sale, and not on merely
producing customer ready and willing.-Damers
v. Trident Fisheries Co., 418.

473 (Pa.) Affidavit of defense as to provi-
sion for payment from other source held bad as
attempting to destroy the note by parol.-Sec-56 (3) (R.l.) Person given chance to sell
ond Nat. Bank of Reading v. Yeager, 159.
Averment of affidavit of defense as to limit of
defendant's liability held indefinite in substance.
-Id.

489(3) (Conn.) Defense that note was not
stamped when made must be pleaded.-Oviatt v.
Wojcicky, 837.

above net price held not entitled to commission
on sale to one dealing directly with owner.-
Hurley v. Randall, 530.

60 (Me.) Not entitled to commission for
sale of steamers prevented by war shipping
statute and proclamation.-Damers v. Trident
Fisheries Co., 418.

503 (Conn.) Delay in banking held mate-61 (4) (R.I.) Commission not forfeited by
rial to meet defense of giving for accommoda- defect in principal's title.-Morrow v. Gledhill,
tion.-Oviatt v. Wojcicky, 837.
712.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

67(1) (Conn.) Broker held not a middle- cars.-Penn Oil Co. v. Triangle Petroleum &
man, entitled to double compensation.-Twiss Gasoline Co., 482.
v. Herbst, 201.

(J) Charges and Liens.

67(1) (Conn.) Cannot represent both par-
ties simultaneously.-Gardner v. Buechler, 589.194 (N.H.) Bill of lading describing con-
67(2) (Conn.) Broker not entitled with- signor as owner gives no notice that the con-
out knowledge of parties to exchange, to two signee is to pay freight.-New York, N. H. &
commissions.-Twiss v. Herbst. 201.
H. R. R. v. Tonella, 341.

69 (Conn.) Increase in value of land and
refusal to sell no excuse for refusing to pay full
commission.-Gardner v. Buechler, 589.

71 (Conn.) Tracts held not to show bro-
ker agreed to reduction of commission.-Gard-
ner v. Buechler, 589.

V. ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION.

86(1) (Conn.) Finding that broker was en-
titled to commission, though land sold by owner,
sustained. Hayes v. Clark, 781.

Shipper liable for freight in absence of other
agreement.-Id.

195 (N.H.) Mistake in interstate freight
collected does not prevent collection of law-
ful freight.-New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v.
Tonella, 341.

Acceptance of smaller amount does not estop
from collecting full freight from consignor.-Id.
Acceptance by consignee and payment by him
not notice of his ownership.-Id.

Mistake in weight has same effect as mistake
86(1) (R.I.) Verdict for commissions held
in rate.-Id.
against the evidence.-Rowe v. City & Subur-196 (N.H.) Evidence held to sustain find-
ban Land Trust, 747.
86(4) (R.1.) Evidence insufficient to showing that agreement not to charge for ferrying
was not consideration for conveyance.-Boston
prospective purchaser furnished bought prop- & M. R. R. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 691.
erty. Hurley v. Randall, 530.

88(14) (Conn.) No variance between a (K) Discrimination and Overcharge.
contract pleaded and finding of contract prov-199 (N.H.) Separate charge should
ed.-Gardner v. Buechler, 589.

CARRIERS.

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF
COMMON CARRIERS.

(A) In General.

12(1) (N.H.) Permission by state and in-
terstate commerce commissions to charge for
ferrying is conclusive that charge was neces-
sary. Boston & M. R. R. v. Great Falls Mfg.
Co., 691.

13(1) (N.H.) Required by common law and
statute in 1853 to make substantially equal
charges.-Boston & M. R. R. v. Great Falls
Mfg. Co., 691.

Permission to carry paupers free does not au-
thorize free service not charitable.-Id.

be
made for service of substantial benefit to par-
ticular shippers if all are to be treated alike.-
Boston & M. R. R. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co.,
691.

IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.
(A) Relation Between Carrier and Pas-

senger.

246 (N.J.Sup.) Evidence insufficient to show
that person killed by locomotive was trespasser
or licensee.-Rhodehouse v. Director General
of Railroads, 662.

(D) Personal Injuries.

280 (7) (Md.) Automobile owner with guest
is not bound to exercise care required of com-
mon carrier.-Washington, B. & A. R. Co. v.
State, 164.

13(2) (N.H.) Evidence held insufficient to
show rental of land was substantially equiva-287 (1), (Conn.) Duty of motorman to re-
lent to charge for ferrying.-Boston & M. R. R. duce speed of car approaching highway cross-
ing and station.-Pond v. Connecticut Co., 621.
v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 691.
Motorman, approaching highway crossing and
13(2)(N.J.) Giving exclusive privilege to
solicit on station platform not discriminatory station, should keep reasonable lookout.-Id.
within Public Utilities Act.-Thompson's Ex-287(1) (N.J.Sup.) Carrier must use "high
degree of care" towards passengers entering
press & Storage Co. v. Mount, 173.
V. Director General of

14 (N.J.) May give one exclusive privilege trains.-Rhodehouse
of soliciting on platform at station.-Thomp-Railroads, 662.
son's Express & Storage Co. v. Mount, 173.

18(1) (Pa.) Jurisdiction of complaint for
exacting unauthorized street car fares held in
Public Service Commission in the first instance.
-City of Scranton v. Scranton Ry. Co., 241.
(B) Interstate and International Trans-

portation.

303(1)(N.J.Sup.) Carrier must use "high
degree of care" towards passengers alighting
from trains.-Rhodehouse v. Director General
of Railroads, 662.

316(7) (Vt.) Negligence presumed on in-
jury to street car passenger through fall of
pole. Stewart v. Barre & Montpelier Traction
& Power Co., 526.

30 (N.H.) Permission by state and inter-318(1) (N.J.Sup.) Facts held to show de-
state commerce commissions to file a sched- fendant negligent in operating engine killing
v. Director
ule of rates for ferrying is conclusive that plaintiff's decedent.-Rhodehouse
charge was necessary.-Boston & M. R. R. v. General of Railroads, 662.
Great Falls Mfg. Co., 691.

32(2) (N.J.Sup.) Counterclaim for dam-
ages not permissible in action for freight on
interstate shipment.-Delaware, L. & W. R.
Co. v. Henry Nuhs Co., 223.

320(1) (N.J.Sup.) In action for death of
passenger case is for the jury if any evidence
of negligence.-Rhodehouse v. Director Gener-
al of Railroads, 662.

321 (3) (Vt.) Requested charge in suit for
injury to passenger when pole fell on him prop-
erly refused, as overlooking duty to inspect
structure.-Stewart v. Barre & Montpelier
Traction & Power Co., 526.

(E) Contributory Negligence of Person
Injured.

327 (Conn.) Passenger on platform negli-
gent in not stepping back from track on ap-
proach of car.-Pond v. Connecticut Co., 621.

331 (6) (Conn.) Passenger is negligent in
riding with leg protruding from automobile
door.-Guilfoile v. Smith, 593.

339 (Conn.) Negligence in permitting leg
to protrude over automobile door not necessari-

340 (Conn.) Essentials of last clear chance 71 (3) (Conn.) Making fast to moorings in
doctrine as to one struck while signaling car lee of drifting yacht contributory negligence.
to stop.-Pond v. Connecticut Co., 621.
-Durham v. Larom, 832.

II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION.

27 (5) (Me.) Employment in interstate
commerce necessary for injury to be within fed-
eral Employers' Liability Act.-Foley v. Hines,
715.

Work of railroad employé in discharging coal
from steamer held not in interstate commerce
within federal Employers' Liability Act.-Id.
cer-27 (5) (N.J.) Test of employment in inter-
state commerce within federal act stated.-
Swank v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 44.

Whether marks on ballot conformed to stat-
utory requirements question of law, reviewable See Bills and Notes.
on certiorari.-Id.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(B) Form and Contents of Instruments.
47 (Conn.) Generality of description does
not affect validity as between parties.-Hart-
ford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Puritan Laundry See Eminent Domain.
of Hartford, 149.

III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA-

152 (Conn.) Rights of attaching creditor
not affected by notice of mortgage.-Hartford-
Connecticut Trust Co. v. Puritan Laundry of (A) Acts Constituting Conspiracy and Li-
Hartford, 149.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

III. DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERN-
MENTAL POWERS AND
FUNCTIONS.

(A) Legislative Powers and Delegation

Thereof.

Acceptance of orders held not to validate
agreement as to articles not purchased or de-
livered.-Id.

(B) Parties, Proposals, and Acceptance.

requires
same intention.-

56 (Conn.) Act providing for submission 15 (Del.Super.) "Agreement"
of controversy as to alteration or abandonment meeting of minds in the
of highway for power dam purposes held not in- Stuckert v. Cann, 596.
valid.-Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Town
of Southbury, 360.

56 (Conn.) Statute empowering judges to
do certain acts on petition for abandonment of
road held not invalid.-Connecticut Light &
Power Co. v. Town of Southbury, 363.

(D) Consideration.

52 (Conn.) Promise to do something to
promisor's detriment is a good consideration.
-State v. Lum, 190.
90 (Conn.) Actual forbearance evidence of
agreement to forbear.-State v. Lum, 190.

(E) Validity of Assent.

IV. POLICE POWER IN GENERAL.
81 (Conn.) Scope of "police power."-Ing-94(1) (Del.Super.) Procured by fraudulent
ham v. Brooks, 209.

misrepresentations as to material fact may be
avoided.-Stuckert v. Cann, 596.

(F) Legality of Object and of Considera-
tion.

~116(!) (N.J.Ch.) Contract of builders with
labor unions to employ only union men against
public policy.-Lehigh Structural Steel Co. v.
Atlantic Smelting & Refining Works, 376.

127(2) (Me.) Agreement for conclusive
reference of all issues is invalid.-Conant v.

Arsenault, 578.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA-

TION.

(A) General Rules of Construction.

169 (N.J.Sup.) Workmen's Compensation171 (1) (Conn.) Contract entire when it
Bureau Act held valid.-Levitan Embroidery contemplates that the consideration shall be

Works v. Lamatina, 648.

common; "entire contract."-Hartford-Connec-
ticut Trust Co. v. Cambell, 864.

Whether divisible or not depends on the in-
tention of the parties.-Id.

XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
257 (Vt.) Permitting waiver of arraign-
ment does not violate due process under fed-176(9) (N.J.Ch.) Intent and meaning of
eral Constitution.-State v. Prouty, 559.
Arraignment before trial may be waived in
misdemeanor cases.-Id.

277(1) (N.J.Sup.) Mother's right to custo-
dy not property within fourteenth amendment.-
Fischer v. Meader, 503.

seller's covenant on sale of business a question
of law.-Cosmos Dyeing & Printing Works v.
Calderini, 517.

(C) Subject-Matter.

280 (Conn.) Statute relating to abandon-commissions on sales to introduced corporations
190 (Md.) Defendant having agreed to pay
ment of roads for construction of power dams held liable for commissions on direct contracts.
held not unconstitutional.-Connecticut Light & Alexander v. Capital Paint Co., 140.
Power Co. v. Town of Southbury, 360.
CONTEMPT.

II. POWER TO PUNISH, AND PRO-
CEEDINGS THEREFOR.

66(2) (N.J.Ch.) Appeal lies in case of in-
direct or consequential contempt.-Bijur Motor
Appliance Co. v. International Ass'n of Ma-
chinists. Dist. No. 15, 642.

(D) Place and Time.

211 (Md.) Stipulations as to time ordina-
rily of the essence.-Penn Oil Co. v. Triangle
Petroleum & Gasoline Co., 482.

time, where time is of essence.-Id.
Parties entitled to strict performance as to

212(2) (Vt.) Performance within reasona-
ble time implied-Hayden v. Hoadley, 343.

66(5) (N.J.Ch.) If appeal lies, notice of ap-215(1) (Md.) Agreement to pay commis-
peal suspends operation of decree pending ap- of introduction to corporate officers cannot be
sions on all sales to corporation in consideration
peal. Bijur Motor Appliance Co. v. Interna-
tional Ass'n of Machinists, Dist. No. 15, 642.
discontinued at will.-Alexander v. Capital Paint
Order for release from imprisonment pending Co., 140.
appeal granted.-Id.

CONTRACTS.

See Assignments; Bills and Notes; Covenants:
Frauds, Statute of; Money Lent; Release:
Sales; Specific Performance; Vendor and
Purchaser.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(A) Nature and Essentials in General.

10(1) (Conn.) Contract held not lacking in
mutuality; "reasonable effort."-Hayes v. Clark,
781.

III. MODIFICATION AND MERGER.
245(2) (Md.) Negotiations and oral agree-
ments merged in written agreement.-Alexander
v. Capital Paint Co., 140.

IV. RESCISSION AND ABANDON-

MENT.

261 (2) (Vt.) If entire, may be rescinded
for breach of essential term.-Auer & Twitch-

ell v. Robertson Paper Co., 570.

V. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH.

10(4) (Del.Super.) To supply buyer's re-284 (12) (Me.) Architect had no authori-
quirements not void for lack of mutuality, if ty to require application of shellac over stain
quantity ascertainable.--American Trading Co. before wax finish under contract.-Jacques v.
v. National Fibre & Insulation Co., 290.
Otto Nelson Co., 515.
Sale involving all of buyer's requirements, 284(4) (Me.) Decision of architect as ar-
when not void for lack of mutuality and cer- bitrator, when binding.-Jacques v. Otto Nelson
tainty.-Id.
¡ Co., 515.

321 (1) (Vt.) Rule allowing defaulting par-
ty to recover for part performance, with de-
duction of damages, inapplicable, where he
seeks damages for nonperformance.-Auer &
Twitchell v. Robertson Paper Co., 570.

VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH.

VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS.
(A) Election or Appointment, Qualifica-
tion, and Tenure.

281 (N.J.Sup.) Statute as to election of
directors held not applicable to election of busi-
ness agents.-Robak v. Polish Businessmen's
Inv. Ass'n, 599.

346(12) (Md.) Plaintiffs claiming under (C) Rights, Duties, and Liabilities as to
written contract not estopped to claim for work
Corporation and Its Members.
and labor under oral contract.-Alexander v.314(1) (N.J.) President not liable for
Capital Paint Co., 140.
profits made in dealing in stock.-Keely v.
Black, 22.

349(1) (Vt.) Evidence properly excluded
as immaterial.-Hayden v. Hoadley, 343.

CONVERSION.

19(2) (N.J.Ch.) Devise to trustees to in-
vest and pay income to daughter for life, and
providing for disposition at her death depend-
ent on leaving issue, construed.-Miers v. Per-
sons, 638.

314(4) (N.J.) Entitled to profits made by
president in transfer of property rights to oth-
er corporation.-Keely v. Black, 22.

VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND

LIABILITIES.

(A) Extent and Exercise of Powers in
General.

~21(1) (N.J.Ch.) On death of legatee, sons
took as heirs, regardless of conversion.-Sten-vestigate election of business agent by sum-
neck v. Kolb, 277.

22(1) (N.J.Ch.) Failure of purpose for
which real estate is to be sold effects recon-
version. Stenneck v. Kolb, 277.

CORPORATIONS.

See Carriers; Electricity; Gas; Municipal Cor-
porations; Railroads; Street Railroads; Tel-
egraphs and Telephones.

II. CORPORATE EXISTENCE AND

FRANCHISE.

32(7) (N.J.Sup.) Method proving corporate
existence by certificate stated.-Maagget v. A.
Brawer Silk Co., 656.

IV. CAPITAL, STOCK, AND DIVI-
DENDS.

393 (N.J.Sup.) Supreme Court cannot in-
mary procedure.-Robak v. Polish Business-
men's Inv. Ass'n, 599.

(D) Contracts and Indebtedness.
448(1) (N.J.Ch.) Not liable for organizer's
promise to pay for services.-Speedograph Cor-
poration v. Maier, 325.

448(3) (N.J.Ch.) Cannot enforce promise
made to organizer.-Speedograph Corporation
v. Maier, 325.

4802 (N.J.Ch.) Mortgage extinguished by
taking of third party's note in payment of se-
cured note.-Turner v. Ridge Heights Land Co.,
675.

482(5) (N.J.Ch.) Evidence held to show
that note of third party was intentionally tak-
en in payment of secured note.-Turner v. Ridge
Heights Land Co., 675.

487(1) (N.H.) Ultra vires contract with
carrier for free service in consideration of con-
veyance cannot be enforced by either party.-
Boston & M. R. R. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co.,
691.

VIII. INSOLVENCY AND RECEIVERS.

(E) Interest, Dividends, and New Stock.
156 (Me.) Preferred stock limited to speci-
fied dividends not entitled to participate fur-
ther in surplus.-Stone v. U. S. Envelope Co., 565(1) (N.J.Ch.) Claim of employé stock-
holder for repurchase of stock to prejudice of
creditors properly disallowed.-Bayne v. Com-
ing Egg Farm, 289.

536.

V. MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS.

(A) Rights and Liabilities as to Corpora- | XI. DISSOLUTION AND FORFEITURE
OF FRANCHISE.

tion.

181(1) (Me.) Right to examine books ex-617 (2) (N.H.) Repeal of charter with time
ists only in favor of stockholders with proper to close business does not terminate lease.-
purpose. Shea v. Sweetser, 579.
Conn v. Manchester Amusement Co., 339.

Stockholder has absolute right to inspect
books. Id.

XII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
181(8) (Del.Ch.) Stockholder not neces-
sary party in proceeding to require corporation existence of foreign corporation by certificate
633 (N.J.Sup.) Method proving corporate
to produce books.-Subers v. Continental Se-stated.-Maagget v. A. Brawer Silk Co., 656.
curities Co., 433.

189(9) (Del.Ch.) Nonjoinder of corporate642 (4) (N.J.Ch.) Contract made out of
defendant held not bar to relief against other without certificate.-Lehigh Structural Steel
state, so that foreign corporation may sue
defendants.-Subers v. Continental Securities
Co. v. Atlantic Smelting & Refining Works,
Co., 433.
376.

Relief against corporation defendant held not
precluded by plea as to failure to join another
corporation defendant.-Id.

Corporation, controlling corporation whose
contract is sought to be set aside, held not
necessary party.-Id.

That contract of corporation might be inci-
dentally affected held not to make it necessary
party to suit.-Id.

In suit to annul contract, stockholder held
not necessary party on ground that nonjoinder
would result in multiplicity of suits.-Id.

189(11) (Del.Ch.) Plea that wrong corpo-
rate entity has been made defendant held suffi-
cient to bar relief against corporation not a
party. Subers v. Continental Securities Co.,
433.

without certificate may maintain action on con-
~~661(6) (N. J.Ch.) Foreign corporation
tract made out of state.-Lehigh Structural
Steel Co. v. Atlantic Smelting & Refining
Works, 376.

certificate on contract made out of state held
Right of foreign corporation to sue without
unaffected by corporation act.-Id.

COSTS.

VII. ON APPEAL OR ERROR, AND ON
NEW TRIAL OR MOTION
THEREFOR.

256(4) (Md.) Of appeal charged half to
appellant, responsible for disregard of rule in