Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

GEORGE A. COOKE.2

JUSTICES.
JAMES H. CARTWRIGHT.
FRANK K. DUNN.1

WM. M. FARMER.
JOHN P. HAND.

ALONZO K. VICKERS.
ORRIN N'CARTER.

INDIANA-Supreme Court."
JOHN W. SPENCER, CHIEF JUSTICE.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICES.
DOUGLAS MORRIS.

RICHARD K. ERWIN.
CHARLES E. COX.

QUINCY A. MYERS.

[blocks in formation]

ASSOCIATE JUSTICES.
JAMES M. MORTON.

HENRY K. BRALEY.
JOHN WILKES HAMMOND.

HENRY N. SHELDON.
WILLIAM CALEB LORING.

CHARLES A. DE COURCY.

1 Ceased to be Chief Justice June, 1913.
? Became Chief Justice June, 1913.
• Beginning May 26, 1913.

Resigned September 1, 1913.
8 Appointed Chief Judge September 1, 1913.
Appointed September 1, 1913.

6

(v)

319.3771

NEW YORK—Court of Appeals.

EDGAR M. CULLEN, CHIEF JUDGE.

ASSOCIATE JUDGES. JOHN C. GRAY.

EMORY A. CHASE. WILLIAM E. WERNER.

FREDERICK COLLIN. WILLARD BARTLETT.

WILLIAM H. CUDDEBACK. FRANK H. HISCOCK.

JOHN W. HOGAN.
NATHAN L. MILLER.

OHIO—Supreme Court.

WILLIAM Z. DAVIS, CHIEF JUSTICE.?
JOHN A. SHAUCK, CHIEF JUSTICE. 8

JUDGES. WILLIAM T. SPEAR.7

MAURICE H. DONAHUE. JOHN A. SHAUCK.8

R. M. WANAMAKER.9 JAMES G. JOHNSON, JR.

OSCAR W. NEWMAN.9
J. FOSTER WILKIN.10

* Retired January 1, 1913.
& Became Chief Justice to succeed William Z. Davis.

9 Became Judge January 1, 1913.
10 Became Judge December 20, 1912.

1

AMENDMENTS TO RULES

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

Amended Rule 39—Complete 1

Rule 39 has been amended at various times The board shall certify to this court ev. by the Supreme Court since its publication ery person who shall pass a satisfactory exin Vol. 235 of the Reports, paragraph 6 be- amination, provided such person shall have ing so amended at the June term, 1913. The in other respects complied with the rules regrule as now in force is as follows:

ulating the licensing of attorneys, which fact

shall be determined by said board before the ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR-BOARD OF examination. If an applicant, on examinaEXAMINERS.

tion, should be rejected, he shall not again

be admitted to an examination until at least Rule 39. There shall be appointed by this one examination has intervened after such court a State Board of Law Examiners, to rejection, and shall file with the board proof consist of five members of the bar of at least that he has studied law during the intervenfive years' standing,-one from each Appel- ing time subsequent to the prior examination. late Court district and one from the state at

Each applicant for admission to the bar, large,-to hold, regulate, supervise and con- whether upon examination or admission in trol examinations for admission to the bar, another state or foreign country, shall pay and to examine and report upon applica- to said board, in advance, a fee of eight doltions for admission, based upon admission to lars, and shall present his affidavit, or that the bar in another state or foreign country. of some other reputable person for him, that Every application to this court for admission he is of the age of twenty-one years or above, to the bar shall be made in term time, by a resident of this state and a citizen of the motion in open court, based upon a report of United States, or has declared his intention said Board of Law Examiners. Each ex- of becoming a citizen thereof; also, a certiaminer shall act as a member of such board fied transcript of the record from a court for a term of three years, except under the of record of this state showing that he is a first appointment, which shall be for a term person of good moral character, which tranof one year for one, two years for two and script shall show that at least two reputable three years for the remaining two of said members of the bar practicing in the court examiners, and until the appointment of in which the record is made, and whose their successors.

names shall be given, appeared before said Examinations shall be conducted by writ- court and testified that the applicant was a ten or printed interrogatories, in whole or reputable person and of good moral characin part, and be as nearly as possible uniform ter. throughout the state; to be held at Ottawa Preliminary education Requirements for on the last Tuesday in February; at Chica- examination-Proof of study, how made. Evgo the first Tuesday next succeeding the ery applicant, except those who apply for adfourth day in July; at Springfield the first mission by virtue of admission in another Tuesday in October, and at Mt. Vernon on state or foreign country, shall present to the the first Tuesday in December in each year. Board of Law Examiners satisfactory proof, Such examinations shall be held by the ex- in writing, by examination or otherwise, as aminers as a body, a majority of whom shall the board may direct, that he has had a preconstitute a quorum.

liminary general education, acquired prior Each applicant examined must sustain a to beginning the study of law, equivalent to satisfactory examination upon the law of that of a graduate of a four-year course high real and personal property, personal rights, school in this state, and has, within six years torts, contracts, evidence, common law and next prior to applying for examination, purequity pleading, partnerships, bailments, ne- sued for the period of three years, during gotiable instruments, principal and agent, at least thirty-six weeks in each year, a principal and surety, domestic relations, wills, course of law studies covering the subjects corporations, equity jurisprudence, conflict of above enumerated, (naming the law books laws, criminal law, and upon the principles studied,) and that such law studies have of the constitutions of the state and of the been pursued in an established law school United States and legal ethics.

considered by the board to be in good stand1 For rule as previously adopted, see 85 N. E. x. 102 N.E.

(vii)

ing, or under the personal tuition of one or their certificate of qualification. Any fraudmore licensed lawyers, and that the appli- ulent act or representation by an applicant cant, if studying under such tuition, has sub- in connection with his application for examimitted to regular and satisfactory examina- nation or admission shall be sufficient cause tions by such lawyer or lawyers during said for the withholding of the license by this period upon each subject, not less than once court, or for its revocation after it has been each week during at least thirty-six weeks issued. in each year. Such proof shall consist of Every applicant for admission to the bar the affidavit of the applicant and the certifi- upon a license or other voucher showing his cate of the secretary or one of the profes- admission as an attorney at law in another sors of the law school showing personal at state or foreign country, must, in addition to tendance at such law school, or the affidavit the other proofs above required, present to or affidavits of the lawyer or lawyers under the board such license duly certified, or a whose tuition such studies have been pur- copy of the record of the court showing his sued, or if, in consequence of the death or admission to the bar, duly proved, as reabsence of such lawyer or lawyers, his or quired by law for the authentication of the their affidavit cannot be procured, its place records of courts of sister states when ofmay be supplied by the affidavit of any cred- fered in evidence in the courts of this state. ible witness having knowledge of the facts. Such license or voucher must confer the The course of study may be made up by at-right to practice in the highest courts in tendance upon a law school for a portion of such state or foreign country. Such applithe time and under the direction and super- cant shall be admitted upon such license or vision of one or more lawyers for the re- voucher without examination by the board, mainder of the time. Persons who in good if it appears to the court, by certificate of faith have before July 1, 1913, begun, but said board, that in the state or country in not yet completed, the study of law in com- which the license was issued the requirepliance with former rules of this court con- ments for admission to the bar were equal cerning admission to the bar, shall be per- to those prescribed in this state, or that the mitted to complete their requirements for ex-applicant has been engaged in active pracamination or admission under the rules ex- tice for a period of five years in courts of isting prior to the adoption of the present record under such license. The board shall amendments, provided that such rquirements certify to this court persons entitled to adare completed within six years from the time mission by virtue of such admission to the when they were begun, and that the periodi-bar in such other state or foreign country. cal examination of students under the tui

Out of the fees received by the board of tion of licensed lawyers shall, after July 1, examiners they shall pay all necessary ex1913, be had and proved in accordance with

penses for examinations, including necessary the requirements of this rule.

traveling expenses.

The remainder of said The papers produced to the board of ex- fund in each year shall be divided equally aminers in conformity with the foregoing rule shall not be deemed conclusive evidence

among the examiners: Provided, however, of the facts therein stated, and if it shall that no examiner shall receive more than come to the knowledge of said board that $750 per annum, and if, after the payment any person who has presented to said bvard of such sum to each examiner, there shall resuch transcript, has imposed upon the court main a surplus, said surplus shall be paid in which the record is made and is not, in over to the succeeding board of examiners, fact, a person of good moral character, or and shall constitute a part of the receipts of that any certificate or affidavit is untrue, the next succeeding year. The board of exsaid board shall, after full investigation, cer- aminers shall render an account of their retify their findings in that respect, together ceipts and disbursements to this court at the with the reasons therefor, to this court with October term of each year.

CASES REPORTED

306

Page 1

Page Adams, Buckeye Fire Ins. Ass'n v. (Ohio)1119 Barrett, Jester V. (Ind.)....

29 Adams, Lingle v. (111.).

1010 Barrett Mfg. Co. v. Chicago (Ill.). .1017 Adams v. Union Nat. Savings & Loan Ass'n Barrie, Barclay v. (N. Y.)..

602 (Ind. App.)

145 Bates v. Kingsley (Mass.). Adams, Warfield v., three cases (Mass.). .. 706 Batt,

706 Batt, National Sec. Bank of Boston v. Adams Brick Co., Martin v. (Ind.). .... 831

(Mass.)..

691 Adduci v. Boston Elevated R. Co. (Mass.) 315 Bauer, Davids v. (N. Y.).

..1101 Ætna Ins Co., Hanley v. (Mass.)... 641 | Bausmerth, Fath Const. Co. v. (Ohio).....1123 Africano, People v. (N. Y.)......

..1108 | Bell. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. (Ohio)...1134 Ainsworth v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Bello v. Willey (N. Y.).

.1099 Co. (N. Y.). .1099 Bennett, Dodge v. (Mass.)

. 916 Aldrich v. Aldrich (Mass.). 487 Bensel, In re (N. Y.) ..

.1099 Allison, Luhrig Coal Co. v. (Ohio).. 1127 Berg, South Park Com’rs v. (Ill.).

• 815 Allstatter v. Allstatter (Ohio).... . .1118 Bergen, People v. (N. Y.).

..1108 American Bonding Co. of Baltimore, Assets Berger v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Realization Co. v. (Ohio)......... 719 Co. (Ohio).

.1118 American Druggists' Syndicate, Crowley v. Berkowitz, Cohen v. (Mass.)....

124 (N. Y.).

.1101 Berkshire St. R. Co., Delaney v. (Mass.)... 901 American Exp. Co., Raymond Syndicate v. Berkshire St. R. Co., Eagan v. (Mass.)..... 915 (Mass.)..

124 Berkshire St. R. Co., Scanlon v. (Mass.). . . 915 American Fidelity Co., Thomson v. (Mass.).. 699 Berry's Will, In re (N. Y.)

..1099 American Locomotive Co., Wier v. (Mass.).. 481 Bessemer & L. E. R. Co. v. Phønix Ins. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., In re

Co. (Ohio)...

.1119 (Mass.) 693 B. F. Šturtevant Co., In re (Mass.).

. 693 American Sand Co. v. W. M. Pattison Bien v. Roth (Ohio)..

.1119 Supply Co. (Ohio).... .1118 Bird Iron Co., Kizzee v. (Ohio).

..1126 American Surety Co. v. Harmon (Mass.).. 470 Bisbee v. Mackey (Mass.):

327 American Woolen Co., Parker v. (Mass.). 360 Bissell y. Edwards River Drainage Dist. Ames v. McCaughey (Ohio) 898 (Ill.)

990 Andersen Coal Min. Co., Jaglenaski v. Bladek, People v. (Ill.).

.: 213 (Mass.).... 62 Blake v. Blake (Ill.).

.1007 Anderson v. United States Mortgage & Blake, City of Benton v. (111.)

170 Trust Co. (Ohio)... .1118 Bland v. Cassaday (Ind.)

853 Andrews v. Hocking Val. R. Co. (Ohio). .1118 Block Bounded by Chauncey St., Marion Anheier v. Fowler (Ind. App.)...

108 St., Hopkinson Ave., and Rockaway Ave., Anheuser Busch Brewing Ass'n, Roberts v., in City of New York, In re (N. Y.)...... 638 two cases (Mass.). 316 Blodget, Lee v. (Mass.).

67 Appel v, Chicago City R. Co. (Ill.). .1021 Bloodgood v. Lewis (N. Y.).

610 Apple, Mader v. (Ohio)...

.1127 | Board of Administration v. Stead_(Ill.)... 173 A, R. Linn Co. v. Denly (Ohio).

.1118 Board of Com'rs of Brooks Free Turnpike Armstrong-Landon Co., Miller V. (Ind. Road, Halsey v. (Ohio)...

.1124 App.).....

47 Board of Com’rs oỂ Crawford County, DahlArmstrong, Watson v. (Ind.). 273 er v. (Ohio)..

1122 Ashby, Western Ins. Co. v. (Ind. App.).. ... 45 Board of Com’rs of Gibson County, Town Assets Realization Co. v. American Bond

of Francisco v. (Ind. App.)...

877 ing Co. of Baltimore (Ohio).

719 Board of Com’rs of Lake County v. State Assur v. Cincinnati (Ohio). . 702 (Ind.)

97 Assurance Co.

Co. of America V. Hinklin Board of Com’rs of Morgan County, Wilt v. (Ohio)

.1118
(Ind. App.)...

878 Atkins, People v. (N. Y.)..

.1108 Board of Com’rs of Seneca County, SponAtkins, Tamney v. (N. Y.).. 567 seller v. (Ohio)

..1131 Atlantic, G. & P. Co., Famborille

Board of Education of City of New York, (N. Y.)..

1102 People ex rel. Golding v. (N. Y.)..... .1110 Auburn Light, Heat & Power Co., Heskell Board of Education of City of New York, v. (N. Y.).. 540 Requa v. (N. Y.)....

. 1112 Ault, New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. (Ind. Board of Education of City School Dist. App.)...... 988 of Cleveland, State v. (Ohio).

1133 Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co. v. Low- Board of Education of La Belle Special man (Ohio).. .1118 School Dist. v. State (Ohio)..

1119

Board of Gas & Electric Light Com'rs, Fall Backus, Hocking Val. R. Co. v. (Ohio). ..1125 River Gas Works Co. v. (Mass.)...... 475 Baecher, Sullenger v. (Ind. App.)...

380 Board of Health of Lexington, Kineen v., Bailey, Indianapolis Abattoir Co. V. (Ind. four cases (Mass.).

352 App.)

970 Board of Home Missions, Hitchcock v. (I11.) 741 Baker, Marine Boiler Works Co. v. (Ohio). .1127 Board of Infirmary Directors of Ross Baker, State v. (Ohio)..

732 County v. Parrett, two cases (Ohio). .. .1119 Baker, Stevens v. (Mass.).

269 Boehmke v. Northern Ohio Traction Co. Bale v. Chicago Junction R. Co. (Ill.).... 808 (Ohio)

700 Banatski, Levine v. (Ohio).

. 1127 Bohaker v. Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford, Barbour, Goodloe v. (Ohio) .1124 Conn. (Mass.). .....

342 Barclay v. Barrie (N. Y.). 602 Bondy v. Hardina (Mass.)

935 Barfield, Platt v. (Ohio).

.1129 Bonito v. E. E. Taylor & Co. (N. Y.).....1099 Barnard v. Shelburne (Mass.) ..1095 Bonnette v. Molloy (N. Y.).

559 Barr v. Gardner (111.).. 287 'Bornstein v. Faden (N. Y.).

.1099 102 N.E.

(ix)

V.

« PreviousContinue »