SUBCONTRACTORS

ΤΟ

TAX

SUBCONTRACTORS--See MECH. LIENS, 3, '; PAYMENT, 2; SETTLE-

MENT, 5.

SUBPOENAS--See CONTEMPT, 1, ‘.

SUBROGATION- See Co-TEN..

Buyer on Execution- EQUITABLE INTERESTS-The holder of a
sheriff's deed has the right to be subrogated to all the rights of
the debtor in an equitable estate upon paying the holder of the
legal title in trust the debt due him from her for whom the title
was held in trust, and this, though the holder of the legal title
was not made a party to the foreclosure.-Sheppard v. Messen-
ger, 717.

SUPERIOR COURT--See CREDITORS' BILL. 1, 2; EVID. 40, 41; JUDG-
MENTS, 1; PLEA AND PROOF, 1.

SUPERSEDEAS--See JUDGMENTS, 10

SURETIES--See HOMESTEADS, 2; NOTES AND BILLS, 7, 8, 9.
TACKING--See MORTGAGES, 10.

TAXATION-See LIM. ACTIONS, 1; MUN. CORP. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.
1. Equalization of Taxes-City and County-The county board
cannot equalize assessments in the several districts of a
city. Montis v. McQuiston, 651.

2. REMEDIES-Injunction-An action lies to enjoin the collection
of taxes based on an illegal increase made by the county
board.-Idem.

3. Mulet Law-When an owner of a lot occupies a house on one
end thereof, in which he sells liquors, and rents a house on
the other end, the tax is chargeable only on the former part,
though the whole lot is assessed for general taxation and
though the owner uses the rents in his liquor business.-Lucas
County v. John Leonard.-593.

4. SAME-The tax is assessable not only on the building and the
ground on which it stands, but also on all land appurtenant
to and used in connection therewith.-Idem.

5. Paving-An assessment for paving a street is not invalid in toto
because the cost of grading and interest is included therein,
and no tax payer can object to it without tendering that part
of it which is valid.-Allen v.
City, 90.

6. Waterworks—Tax Levy may Precede-A tax to build water-
works may be levied before the contract for the purchase or
construction of the work is consummated or approved by the
electors.-Youngerman v. Murphy, 686.

7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Acts Twenty-sixth General Assembly,
chapter 1, authorizing the levy of taxes by cities in aid of the
Small figures refer to subdivisions of Index. The others to page of report.

TAX. Continued

ΤΟ

TEL. COMPANIES

purchase or construction of waterworks, is not in contraven-
tion of constitution, article 7, section 7, providing that every
law which imposes a tax shall distinctly state the tax and the
object to which it is to be applied, and that it is not sufficient
to refer to any other law to fix such tax or object― Idem.
8. Same-The authority conferred upon cities of the first class by
acts Twenty-sixth General Assembly, chapter 1, to levy taxes
in anticipation of the purchase or erection of waterworks is
not unconstitutional upon the grounds that the object of the
levy is uncertain and indeterminate, although any contract for
purchase or erection must be approved by the electors. -Idem.
9. SAME-Such an act is not in violation of constitution, article 1,
section 1, providing that all men have the inalienable right of
acquiring, possessing and protecting property and pursuing
and obtaining safety and happiness-Idem.

10. Courts-Courts have the undoubted right to inquire into the ob-
ject of a tax and to declare invalid all taxes that are levied for
other than government purposes and a tax may be held invalid
on account of some prohibition of the constitution, but the
courts will not interfere unless it is clear that the legislature
has exceeded its power.

TAX PAYER-See BONDS, 2.

TELEGRAPH COMPANIES-See EVID, ".

1. Agency-A telegraph company whose agent received a message
and undertook to deliver it while acting within the scope of
his agency, although not within the hours fixed for the active
discharge of his duties, is not relieved from its obligation to
deliver the message because it was received to be delivered
out of office hours -McPeek v. Tel. Co., 356.

2. Damages-Damages in an action against a telegraph company
for its failure to promptly deliver a message are not limited to
those which might reasonably have been within the contempla-
tion of the parties, but recovery may be had for all the injur-
ious results which flow therefrom by ordinary natural sequence
without the interposition of any other negligent act or over-
powering force. - Idem.

3. Same-The fact that plaintiff did not know that a reward had
been offered at the time of the delivery of the message for
transmission does not affect his right to recover, as he under-
stood it would be offered and was acting to secure it. -Idem.
4. Same-A telegraph company whose agent knew that the sendee
of a telegram was expecting a message which would relate to
the capture of a criminal, and that prompt delivery was
Small figures refer to subdivisions of Index. The others to page of report
VOL. 107 Ia-52

TEL. COMPANIES Continued

required, is charged with knowledge that a reward might be
made for such capture, and might reasonably reckon on such
a contingency in omitting its duty to promptly deliver the
message.-Idem.

5. Evidence-BURDEN OF PROOF-The burden is on plaintiff to
prove that, in all reasonable probability, the loss claimed by
him to have been sustained by the failure of a telegraph com-
pany to deliver to him a message resulted from the negligence
of the company.-Idem.

6. IMPORTANCE OF TELEGRAM-Extrinsic evidence is admissible to
show that a telegraph company had notice of the importance
of a message delivered to it for transmission.-Idem.

7. INTENT-Where a principal wired his agent to settle a claim,
because of a message he received from him which was changed
in transmission, it was not error to permit the principal to
testify that, if the message had been delivered as sent, he would
not have authorized settlement.-Hasbrouck v. W. U. T. Co.,
160.

8. JURY QUESTION-Whether an agent of a telegraph company ex-
ercised reasonable diligence in attempting to deliver a message
is a question for the jury, where he testified that he rapped
loudly and repeatedly upon the door and received no re-
sponse, and the daughter of the sendee testified that she was
in the house and had not retired at that time, but heard no
noise at the door, and the sendee and his wife testified that
they heard no such noise, and that they would have been likely
to have heard it had there been any; and so is the question
whether he would have succeeded in making an arrest had the
message been delivered --McPeek v. Tel. Co., 356.

9.

10.

Injurious Settlement-A principal received an erroneous tele-
gram from his agent, which he thought of doubtful meaning.
The company's agent informed him that it had been repeated,
and that it was correct; and the principal then acted on the
telegram as plaintiff understood it. Held, that he was not
guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law.-Has-
brouck v. W. U. T. Co., 160.

RELEVANCY-Plaintiff and others made an arrangement for the
capture of an accused, pursuant to which one of the former
sent a telegram to plaintiff to come. The telegram was
delayed, thereby frustrating the capture. Held, that in an
action against the company for damage occasioned by the
delay, testimony by plaintiff and his colleagues as to the
arrangement made between them is admissible, as bearing
Small figures refer to subdivisions of Index. The others to page of report.

TEL. COMPANIES Continued

TO

TICKET

upon the probability of capture had the telegram been
promptly delivered.-McPeek v Tel. Co., 356.

11. Instructions-Where telegrams confer authority on an agent
to act as he did, as a matter of law, it was not prejudicial error
to submit that issue to the jury.-Hasbrouck v. W. U. Tel.
Co., 160.

12.

Same-On an issue as to whether an agent was authorized to
make a settlement by a telegram received from his principal,
an instruction that the agent's failure to follow the strict let-
ter of his authority as contained in the message would be
immaterial, unless his departure occasioned the loss com-
plained of, was not error.-Idem.

13. Non-Delivery of Telegram-Defenses-A message to plaintiff
in relation to the arrest of an accused read: "Come on first
train." The message was delayed, and the plaintiff failed to
secure the arrest. Held, that in an action against the tele-
graph company to recover the amount of the reward claimed
to have been lost by the company's negligence, it is no defense
that, even if the mess ige had been delivered, the arrest could
not have been made because the train did not reach such
place in time, where plaintiff could have reached same by
private conveyance.-McPeek v. Tel. Co., 356.

14. Settlement-REMEDIES Where a principal authorized his agent
to settle a claim against his debtor, because of a telegram,
the terms of which the telegraph company changed in trans-
mission, and the agent settled before the mistake was discov-
ered, the principal is not bound to rescind the settlement
before proceeding against the company for damages.-Has-
brouck v. W. U. T. Co., 160.

15. Telegram-Construction-A telegram from an agent to his
principal was worded "Has stock, $1,200. Mortgage on $1,500.
Am offered note with H. as security for $2,5 0 in full settle-
ment. Shall I accept?" It was mistakenly sent thus: "Have
secured $1,200, mortgage on $1,500 and am offered notes
for $2,400 with H as security, shall I accept?" The fol-
lowing answer was sent: "If $1,200 mortgage is on $1,500
property, accept." The agent settled for the $2,500 note alone,
thus taking $1,100 less than a $1,200 mortgage and a $2,400
note. Held, the agent was justified in so settling unless the
debtor was better off than one who has a $1,200 mortgage on a
$1,500 stock, and in construing the answer to authorize a settle-
ment. Idem.

TENDER-See DAMAGES, 2; MORTGAGES, 6, 7.

Small figures refer to subdivisions of Index. The others to page of report.

TRAMPS

TRAMPS-SEE FEES, 2.

ΤΟ

TRUSTS

11

TRANSCRIPTS-See EVID., 40, 41; JUDGMENTS, "; PLEA AND PROOF, 1.

TRANSFER-See EVID. 6, 38.

TRESPASS--See INJUNCTION.

TRIAL de novo--See PRACT. SUP. CT. 29.

TRIAL NOTICE--See PRACT. 25, 26.

TRUSTS.

1. A trust arises as to money received without authority or even
wrongfully, as between the person receiving it and the true
owner. --Smith v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 620.

2. SAME-Where property was conveyed to a wife, in consideration
of the joint agreement of herself and husband to care for the
grantor during life, and the wife became insane before the
grantor's death, so that the husband was obliged to complete
the agreement, a trust of the property will not result in his
favor. Burkhardt v. Burkhardt, 369.

3. Advancements-Where a father purchased and paid for land,
but took the title in the name of his son, without any arrange-
ment or consultation with him, a resulting trust will arise in
favor of the father, unless the transaction was intended as an
advancement to the son.-Culp v. Price, 133.

4. SAME-Land purchased and paid for by a father, but the title to
which was taken in the name of the son, will be presumed to
have been an advancement to the son. See case for evidence.
--Idem.

5. Deed-Under Revision, 1860, section 2213, providing that
"declarations or creations of trusts or powers in relation to
real estate must be executed in the same manner as deeds of
conveyance," a receipt for money which was subsequently
invested in land created no trust therein, where not so exe-
cuted, and where it did not refer to such land.-Cornelson v.
Roberts, 220.

6. Evidence-The evidence is held insufficient to establish a trust
in certain land which had been devised by plaintiff's mother
to his sister, it being claimed by plaintiff that the consider-
ation paid therefor was money received by the mother in trust
for herself, plaintiff and his sister.-Idem.

7. PAROL PROOF-Code, 1873, section 1934, requiring the creation
of trusts in real property to be executed in writing, does not
apply to trusts resulting by operation of law.-Culp v. Price,
133.

8. Trust Funds-General Assignment-A husband transacted his
wife's business from their marriage, in 1858, andţin, 1891 pro-
Small figures refer to subdivisions of Index. The others to page of report.