« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
CIVIL RIGHTS. 1. DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF COLOR. — Under the common law and the
statutes of Michigan, the keeper of a public restaurant cannot discriminate against a colored person as to the part of the building in which be shall be served, solely on account of his color. In a suit to recover damages, the colored person thus discriminated against need not de
clare upon nor refer to the statute. Ferguson v. Gies, 576. 2 ID. — In Michigan, there is an absolute, unconditional equality of white
'and colored persons before the law in all public places, and a discriiniaation in such place against a colored man, solely on account of bis color, is a ground for the recovery of civil damages I do
CONFLICT OF LAWS. sco ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT, 4; EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS,
CONTRACTS. 1 CONSIDERATION FOR PROMISE, WHAT SUFFICIENT. – To constitute a valid
consideration for a promise, it is not necessary for the promisor to be benefited, or for the promisee to be injured; a waiver of a legal right by the promises at the request of the promisor is sufficient. And therefore a promise by an uncle to his nephew, that if the latter would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or bil. liards for money until he should become twenty-one years of age, he would pay him five thousand dollars, is founded upon a good considera.
tion, and is enforceable. Hamer v. Sidway, 693. 2. PERFORMANCE - EVIDENCE. Where, in an action to recover under a
contract to drill an oil-well at a certain price per foot, a substantial compliance with the terms of the contract is shown, evidence of the average cost of drilling a well at the time of the driliing of the one in suit is emmaterial and inadmiss.ble. Holmes v. Chartiers Oil Co., 919.
& SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE — MEASURE OF RECOVERY. - Where, under a
parol contract to drill an oil-well at a certain price per foot, the con. tractor has drilled the well to such depth as to produce oil, and has then lost his tools and left them in the well, after which the owner has taken possession and used the well for the production of oil, the contractor is entitled to recover the contract price for drilling the well, less such deduction for damages as will compensate the owner for loss sustained by the failure of the contractor to remove his tools from the bottom of
the well. Id. 4 DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. One who violates bis contract with
another is liable for all the direct and proximate damages which result from such violation, and the party who is prevented from performing his contract by such violation is entitled to recover the value thereof. Stano
ton v. New York etc. R’y Co., 110. & “TRUST" AND “COMBINATION AGAINST TRADE, AGREEMENT IN AID 07,
UNENFORCEABLE. - An agreement under which an association is formed, for the purpose of increasing the price and decreasing the manufacture of candles within a certain territory, is void as being contrary to public policy, and is not enforceable in the courts. Emery v. Ohio Candle Co.,
819. 6. STIPULATION THAT THE DECISION IN ONE CASE SHALL GOVERN ANOTHER
is valid and enforceable. Riggs v. Commercial M. Ins. Co., 716. 7. PARTIES CANNOT OUST COURTS OF JURISDICTION WHEN. - It is not coin.
petent for parties to a contract, in advance of any dispute, to oust the jurisdiction of the courts by providing that the decision of persons named in the contract shall be final and conclusive. And therefore a provision in the by-laws of a mutual benefit insurance society that the decision of its officers on a member's claim for benefits shall be final and conclusive is ineffective, and cannot bar an action to recover such
benefits. Supreme Council v. Forsinger, 196. 8. DELIVERY, WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL PART of the execution of an instru.
ment, cannot be inferred froin possession, Wilbur v. Stoepel, 568. Seo ASSIGNMENT; ATTORNEY AND CLIENT; CHATTEL MORTGAGES, 2; COR.
PORATIONS, 2, 5-8, 15; COVENANTS; DAMAGES, 5, 6; EVIDENCE, 10, 11, 15; EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 4-10; JUDGMENTS, 2, 3; MASTER AND SERVANT, 9; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 3; STATUTES, 5.
See NEGLIGENCE, 3–7.
CORPORATIONS 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Right to AMEND CORPORATE CHARTER. — When
a state has reserved the power by general statute to change, modify, or destroy any corporation at will, and has subsequently granted a charter to a railroad corporation, giving it power to build its road where it may deem proper, the state may so amend such charter, after the corporation
has located but before it has constructed its road, as to confine it to a
of the road through a certain county. Macon etc. R. R. Co. v. Gibson, 135.
- Where a state has reserved the power by general statute to
rendered impossible by act of law is oxcused. Ide
amended under power reserved in the state, by adding a proviso
conflict between them, the amendment will prevail. Id.
Where a statute amending a railroad charter provides that the road sball
tion of a railroad. Id.
promoters of a corporation to aid the inchoate corporation, as a rea.
ton v. New York etc. R’y Co., 110.
made by its promoters, when it is one within the purposes for which
own acts or omissions to escape liability on the contract. Id.
the three stockholders and directors a corporation, that a purchaser
& CONTRACIS — KNOWLEDGE AND ASSENT. — In order to make a contract
valid which would be void without the consent of all the stockholders of
to be made, and that they assented. Id.
CREDITOR. – A mortgage given by a railroad company to aid in con-
OTHER CORPORATION NOT LIABLE FOR GENERAL DEBTS OF LATTER.
and franchises it acquires. Midland R’y Co. v. Fisher, 189.
NOT MERE GENERAL DEBT OF LATTER WHEN. Where a corporation
to perform the agreement which created and conferred the easement. ld.
which “the directors ” of a corporation promise to pay a certain sum,
Kensey v. Edwards, 339.
directors of a corporation promise to pay a certain sum, and signed
signed by the obligors as individuals. Id.
EXECUTED IN CORPORATE NAME. – Persons who, as directors of a cor.
tive Trust Co. v. Floyd, 846. 15. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS – LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. — When a cor
poration has become wholly insolvent, and has ceased to do business, and has assigned its property for the benefit of creditors, suit to enforce their statutory liability may be commenced against the stockholders by creditors, without any of them first recovering judgment and having an execution returned unsatisfied, and the statute of limitations begins to
run from that time against the right of action. Barrick v. Gifford, 798. 16. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. — Where a
corporation has property and continues to do business, a creditor must first obtain judgment against it, and have an execution returned unsatisfied, before he can bring suit against the stockholders upon their individual statutory liability, and the statute of limitations begins to
run against them from that time, and not before. Id. 17. METHOD or ENFORCING STATUTORY LIABILITIES OF STOCKHOLDERS.
A suit in the nature of a creditor's bill is the proper method to be adopted by creditors of an insolvent corporation to enforce the statutory liability of its stockholders, and when such suit is brought, no creditor can acquire priority nor maintain a separate suit to enforce such liability
in his own behalf. Id. 18. INSOLVENCY - CREDITOR'S BILL Statute OF LIMITATIONS. — A suit
in the nature of a creditor's bill to enforce the statutory liability of the stockholders of an insolvent corporation saves the running of the statute of limitations, not only as against the claim of the one filing it, but also as against the claim of every creditor of the corporation who
comes into the action before its final termination. Id. 19. LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. — A change in the stockholders of a cor
poration has no effect upon its legal status. It remains through all changes in the personnel of its stockholders, the same legal entity, pos
sessed of the same rights, and subject to the same liabilities. Id. 20. LIABILITY OF NEW STOCKHOLDER. - When one purchases or acquires
stock in a corporation, no matter at what time, he acquires a fractional interest in the capital stock, assets, profits, and liabilities of the corpora
tion. Id. 21. LIABILITY OF New STOCKHOLDER. — If an existing stockholder of an insol.
vent corporation is solvent, it is immaterial, so far as his statutory liability to creditors is concerned, when he became the owner of the stock,
or from whom he acquired it. Id. 22. CHANGE or NAME OF CORPORATION WILL NOT RELIEVE ADMITTED
Srock SUBSCRIBER therein from liability to the creditors of the corpora. tion for the amount remaining due on the stock subscribed by him.
Howard v. Glenn, 156. 23. FRAUD OF CORPORATION NOT AVAILABLE AS DEFENSE TO STOCKHOLDER.
- In an action by creditors of a corporation to colloct unpaid subscriptions by a stockholder, the defense of fraud on the part of the cor
decree upon which suit by creditors to collect unpaid stock subscriptions to a corporation is based, provided that if the stockholders should pay a certain per cent upon their subscriptions within a certain time, this