Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

RELEASE.
See JOINT LIABILITY.

REPLEVIN.
See OFFICE AND OFFICER, L.

RES GESTÆ.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 1; EVIDENCE, 3-6.

RES JUDICATA.
See JUDGMENTS.

REVIEW.
See APPEAL AND ERROR.

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1-3; WATERCOURSES.

SALES. 1. AGREEMENT TO YIELD PROPERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR PROPERTY — Con

TRACT OF SALE NOT BAILMENT. An agreement by which one party agrees to deliver to another wheat, for which the latter is to deliver, on request, a designated number of pounds of four and bran for each bushel of wheat delivered, is essentially a contract of sale, and not of bailinent. The party delivering the wheat is not entitled to the flour and bran produced from the wheat delivered by him to the other party, and the latter does not undertake to restore the wheat either in its original or in its altered form. If, therefore, a person agrees to furnish to a miller wheat for which the latter agrees to deliver to him, on request, a designated number of pounds of flour and bran for each bushel of wheat delivered, the flour and bran to remain in the possession of the miller, subject to delivery upon demand of the other party, and before the delivery of all the flour and bran the miller's mill and warehouse, with their contents, are, without his negligence or wrong, consumed by fire, the miller will be liable to such other party for the flour and bran which the seller as security for the purchase price by agreement of the parties, and so long as the rights of innocent third parties are not affected, it may be enforced according to its terms; still, as to innocent purchasers from ani creditors of the buyer, such agreement gives him a deceptive

had not been delivered. Woodward v. Semans, 225. 2 POTENTIAL EXISTENCE. Where a contract of sale and purchase re

lates to the fruit which shall grow on a seller's trees during the five years succeeding that in which the contract is made, such fruit must be regarded as having a potential existence sufficient to support the contract

of sale. Cutting P. Co. v. PackersExchange, 63. 3. SALE OF CHATTEL, What CONSTITUTES. A sale of a chattel is the transfer

of the property in it for a consideration, and is ordinarily effected by the delivery of the thing sold to the buyer, and the delivery of the price or a

security therefor to the seller. Stephens v, Gifford, 868. 4. SALE OF CHATTEL INJURIOUS to THIRD PARTY VOID. — Parties to a sale of

a chattel may make such terms and conditions as are convenient to them, but when such terms and conditions are prejudicial to others, or are calculated to mislead the public, they are void as to those who would

otherwise be injuriously affected by them. Id. 6. SALE OF CHATTEL – RETENTION OF TITLE BY SELLER INVALIDITY AS TO

INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES. The title to a chattel sold may remain in

appearance of ownership and a false credit, and will be disregarded. ld. 6. SALE OF CIATTEL - PossessION AS PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP. - When

one has possession of personal property, those who deal with him on the credit thereof must inquire into the origin and nature of his possession as to whether or not he is a purchaser or a bailee, and when it is learned that he is a purchaser, his continued possession raises a presumption of continued ownership which is conclusive in favor of bona fide purchasers

and creditors. Id. 7. SALE OF CHATTEL - RETENTION OF TITLE - RIGHT OF INNOCENT PUR.

CHASER. Where the owner of goods sells them to one party and retains the possession, afterwards selling them to another innocent purchaser, who takes possession, the first purchaser loses his title, no matter if he acted in good faith, paid a fair price, and left the goods

with the seller because of his confidence in and desire to aid him. Id. 8. Sale of CHATTELS — RETENTION OF POSSESSION AS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD. —

Retention of possession by the seller, upon a sale of chattels, is not merely evidence of fraud, but in itself makes the transaction fraudulent

as to subsequent bona fide creditors and purchasers from him. Id. 9. SALE OF CHATTELS — CHANGE OF POSSESSION, HOW DETERMINED. - In

deciding the sufficiency of possession taken by the purchaser of a chattel, to protect him against subsequent purchasers or creditors in good faith, the character of the property, the use to be made of it, the nature and object of the transaction, the position of the parties, and the usages of

trade or business must all be considered. Id. 10. SALE OF CHATTELS — SUFFICIENCY OF CHANGE OF POSSESSION. — The pur.

chaser of goods must, for the protection of himself and the public, take such possession as is usual and reasonable, in view of all the circumstances of his purchase, where the property is capable of delivery; and as between himself and subsequent purchasers in good faith and creditors, he must

bear the loss of his neglect in this respect. Id. 11. SALE OF CHATTELS — SUFFICIENCY OF CHANGE OF POSSESSION. – A sale of

horses and a wagon and harness under an arrangement by the purchaser with the seller that the former should have the use of the stable where they were kept, and should continue to care for them until ready to remove them, with no other change of possession, is fraudulent and

void as against a subsequent execution creditor of the seller. Id. 12. SALE OF GOODS BY SAMPLE — MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF

WARRANTY. – Where goods are sold by sample, with a warranty of quality, and are retained by the purchaser, the measure of damages for a breach of the warranty is the difference between the market value of the goods contracted for and of the goods delivered; and in an action for the price of the goods, the purchaser may interpose this difference

as a defense pro tanto. Ogden v. Beatty, 862. 13. SALE OF GOODS BY SAMPLE SCFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE IN

ACTION FOR PRICE. -An affidavit of defense, setting up a breach of warranty in a sale of goods by sample, in an action for their price, must contain a clear and concise statement of the facts which constitute a basis for the assessment of dainages under the rule by which they are measured. All the elements of the defense inust appear with reason. able certainty in the affidavit, and if any fact essential to complete such

defense is omitted, the affidavit is insufficient. ld. 14. SALE OF GOODS BY SAMPLE — SUFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE

IN ACTION FOR PRICE. — An affidavit of defense, setting up a breach of warranty in a sale of gooils by sample, in an action for their price, al. leging great loss by reasou of claims made by customers, and their can. cellation of contracts because of the low grade and inferior quality of goods furnished, is insufficient, as failing to state the essential facts upon which to constitute a basis for the assessment of damages. Such affidavit should at least state the quantity, market price, and differeuce in

quality of the goods purchased, and of the goods delivered. Id. 15. SALE OF GOODS BY SAMPLE – PRESUMPTION AGAINST PURCHASER. — In

an action for the price of goods sold by sample, it will be presumed, in the absence of averment and proof to the contrary, that the goods were inspected by the purchaser when he received them, and that he knew

their grade and quality, and made no complaint as to either. Id. 16. FRAUD OF VENDOR IN MISREPRESENTING QUANTITY. — If the owner

of carpets covering the floors of twelve rooms, besides the hall and stairs of a dwelling-house, knowingly and falsely represents, as of his own knowledge, that they contain a certain number of yards of material, to an intending purchaser, who, in reliance upon such representation, purchases the carpets, the vendee is liable for his misrepresentations. The purchaser was not bound to measure the carpets for himself, or to avail himself of other opportunities of ascertaining the quantity. Lewis v. Jewell, 454.

See ASSIGNMENT, 1, 2; FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.

SEPARATE ESTATE.
See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 14-17.

SET-OFF. See BANKS AND BANKING, 5; HOMESTEAD, 4; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS,

12-14.

SHERIFFS. 1. SHERIFF AND DEPUTY. — Acr or RETURN OF A DEPUTY is a nullity un.

less done in the name and by the authority of the sheriff. Reinhart v.

Lugo, 52. 2. COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT OF RETURN. A sheriff's return, though

false, cannot be impeached in a collateral proceeding for the purpose of setting aside or of getting rid of a judgment authorized by such return. Thomas v. Ireland, 336. See JUDGMENTS, 10; JUDICIAL SALES, 2; MORTGAGES, 4; PROCESS.

SLANDER
See LIBEL AND SLANDER.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 1. Or CONTRACT TO CONVEY LAND- DEED WITH BUILDING RESTRICTIONS.

A contract for the conveyance of city land, providing that the deed therefor shall be subject to certain house hire and building restrictions,

to the effect that the house to be erected shall be at least two stories
high, and not less than twenty feet from the front line of the lot, will
be specifically enforced as mado; and the vendee is not entitled to a
deed free from such restrictions upon performance of the other condi.

tions in the contract. Abraham v. Stewart, 585.
2. VENDOR AND VENDEE - Costs. - A vendor, in an action to enforce specific

performance of a contract to convey, will not be allowed costs when,
for frivolous reasons, he refuses to execute a conveyance, though there is
reason to refuse to execute the conveyance as demanded by the vendee.

Id.

3. PARTY SEEKING, MUST DO EQUITY. - Specific performance is not of right,

but of grace, and one seeking such relief in equity must show himself
ready and willing to do all that he ought in good conscience to do, and

if he does not, his bill will be dismissed. Datz v. Phillips, 864.
4. When WILL NOT BE GRANTED. — Where a contract is not fair or the con

duct of the party seeking its specific performance is not just and con-
scionable, or there are independent circumstances which will render the
operation of a decree of specific performance harsh and inequitable, the

parties will be left to their remedy at law. Id.
6. WHEN WILL NOT BE GRANTED. — Specific performance of an agreement

to close windows in a party-wall, upon receiving one year's notice and
one half the cost of erecting the wall, will not be granted in favor of
a party who has violated his part of the agreement to furnish the build.
ing of defendant with certain sewer connections, in consideration of a
surrender of an easement in plaintiff's land. Id.

STATES.
1. JUDGMENTS - SEIZURE OF STATE PROPERTY TO SATISFY JUDGMENT AGAINST

STATE. Consent to execute the judgment rendered, by seizure and
sale of the property of the state, is not implied by and does not follow
from consent given by statute to maintain suit against the state. If such
consent were expressly given by the statute, it would be unconstitutional
and void. Such a judgment is without compulsive force, and the only
recourse for its satisfaction is by application to the legislature. Carter v.

State, 404.
2. STATUTE AUTHORIZING SUIT AGAINST State has no effect beyond referring

to the judiciary, for settlement, the questions of law and fact involved
in the claims, and the determination, in the form of a judgment, of the
rights of the parties. It does not authorize a seizure of state property
to satisfy such judgment, and only conveys an implication that the legis.
lature will recognize such judgment as final, and make provision for
the satisfaction thereof. Id.

[ocr errors]

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
DEFENSE OF STATUTE OF FRAUDS WAIVED BY FAILURE TO SET IT UP IX

ANSWER WHEN. - Where it does not appear on the face of the com-
plaint that the agreement sought to be enforced by the action is one
prohibited by the statute of frauds, such defense cannot be made avail.
able unless it is set up in the answer. Hamer v. Sidway, 693.

STATUTES.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. TITLE OF STATUTE and the act itself must corre.

spond, not literally, but substantially, and this correspondence is to be

determined in view of the subject-matter to which the legislation relates; and when the title of an act indicates that a thing is to be or may be done, it is no variance from it for the body of the act to provide that the thing shall be done, or not done, on some condition. Macon etc. R. R.

Co. v. Gibson, 135. 2. WHETHER STATUTES ARE Laws of GENERAL NATURE, or not, depends

upon their subject-matter, and not upon their form. State v. Ellet, 772. 3. LAW GENERAL IN FORM, BUT LOCAL IN APPLICATION, VOID.- A law

general in form and purporting to apply to all counties of a designated class, and to establish for them a general system of law regulating the custody, investment, and disbursement of their public funds and rev. enues, but which in fact can never operate but in one county in the state, is local and void as being in conflict with the constitutional provision that "all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation throughout

the state." Id. 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, WHEN MANDATORY. – A constitutional provision

that“ all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation through.

out the state" is mandatory, and not directory merely. ld. 6. JUDGMENT IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT. — In order to constitute

a judgment subject to review as impairing the obligation of a contract, the case must involve the constitution, or a statute, or some enactment that has the force of law, either of the state or of some municipality exercising legislative power delegated by the state, which impairs the

obligation of such contract. Ray v. Western Pa. Nat. Gas Co., 922. 6. INTOXICATING LIQUOR, STATUTE COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OF PERSON

FROM WHOM PROCURED. - A statute requiring defendant, after con. viction of intoxication, to disclose, “under oath, when, where, how, and from whom he procured the liquor by which his intoxication was produced,” and providing that upon his refusal to make such disclosure “it shall be the duty of the magistrate before whom such trial is had to commit the accused for contempt of court,” is not unconstitutional as being contrary to public policy and natural justice, nor as depriving the accused of the right to a trial by jury, nor as depriving him of liberty without due process of law, nor as denying him the equal protection of the laws, nor as making that a contempt of court by statute which is not proper matter for contempt. In re Clayton, 128.

Sea CARRIERS, 1; DentistRY; TELEGRAPH COMPANIES, 7–10.

[blocks in formation]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »